Skip to comments.The 'Media Party' is over (CBS' downfall is just the tip of the iceberg)
Posted on 01/12/2005 7:46:09 AM PST by I Gig Gar
WASHINGTON - A political party is dying before our eyes and I don't mean the Democrats. I'm talking about the "mainstream media," which is being destroyed by the opposition (or worse, the casual disdain) of George Bush's Republican Party; by competition from other news outlets (led by the internet and Fox's canny Roger Ailes); and by its own fraying journalistic standards. At the height of its power, the AMMP (the American Mainstream Media Party) helped validate the civil rights movement, end a war and oust a power-mad president. But all that is ancient history.
Now the AMMP is reeling, and not just from the humiliation of CBS News. We have a president who feels it's almost a point of honor not to hold more press conferences he's held far fewer than any modern predecessor and doesn't seem to agree that the media has any "right" to know what's really going in inside his administration. The AMMP, meanwhile, is regarded with ever growing suspicion by American voters, viewers and readers, who increasingly turn for information and analysis only to non-AMMP outlets that tend to reinforce the sectarian views of discrete slices of the electorate.
Yes, I know: A purely objective viewpoint does not exist in the cosmos or in politics. Yes, I know: Today's media foodfights are mild compared with the viciousness of pamphleteers and partisan newspapers of old, from colonial times forward. Yes, I know: The notion of a neutral "mainstream" national media gained a dominant following only in World War II and in its aftermath, when what turned out to be a temporary moderate consensus came to govern the country.
(Excerpt) Read more at msnbc.msn.com ...
Thank you JESUS! Next the evil ACLU!!!
They were not after the truth, and it wasn't a "sloppy" story, it was a criminal story!
For better or worse, the U.S. media is become more like Europe. Where you have newspapers that declare their allegiances off the bat and go from there.
They will be sorely missed.
Right here for ONE!
That's not bad! As long as they come out and say it! It would be ok if 'The Slimes' came out and said it.
I cannot explain to you just how satisfying it is for me to read that.
Starting in 1999 there has been a steady stream of events that real people could rejoice over. Here is but another one.
Howard really has a bee in his bonnet,
and THAT is worth the price of admission!
The New York Times was founded by a Chairman of the Republican National Committee.
my main exposure to the msm now is via articles posted on FR.
It was posted YESTERDAY,
not a few minutes ago!
And ever since, they have tried to shoehorn just about all events into one of those three worldviews: the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. But those dogs don't hunt any longer.
And yet long time LIBERAL Los Angeles Times Media Critic DAVID SHAW still tells that...
RATHER's work's 'Shoddy, Slipshod' not LIBERAL..?
Must have been a long time ago...
Both parties have changed drastically since then, as well as the leadership of the Times organization. Your point is irrelevant today.
The good old days, eh?
wow! - a brutally honest piece about the MSN from someone within the MSN? Kudos to Howard Fineman
And at one in the morning, if I may add that. I missed it as is sometimes the case with repost, so I, for one, appreciate it.
Could any of these have been accomplished without a bias? The idea that the media could "accomplish" anything goes against what I feel the duty of journalism is. Namely just to report.
At the height of its unchallenged, unbridled power, the AMMP (the American Mainstream Media Party)
helped validate propped up the civil rights movement, destroyed support and morale in an effort to end a war and allowed two pathetic reporters to lead an effort to oust a media perceived power-mad president whom they despised and slandered at every opportunity and have attempted to duplicate with every Republican President since.. But all that is ancient history.
A few corrections were necessary.
insert unnecessary DODGEBAL reply here: "F -in A, Cotton, F-in A..."
Henry Raymond was elected Chairman of the RNC toward the end of the Civil War, but was soon tossed out for being too chummy with the Confederates and their northern allies in the Democratic Party.
Fineman misses the point, and deliberately so, since he knows the truth. They did choose sides, but pretended to be unbiased and objective. They became the mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, although they still won't admit it. Not that admitting anything will help their ratings, since we've known the truth for decades, but it will be good for their evil left wing souls. They can come to terms with their demise and be at peace.
Now this is odd!!
I did a search for "The 'Media Party' is over" and nothing came up!!
The underlying premise of Fineman's article is that the MSM is objective -- and that the space for objective press is shrinking. I don't think anyone at the FR would agree with his assertion that the MSM is objective.
Still should only be posted once.
Here is a link to the search I performed (Still not showing this article). Maybe you can tell me what I did wrong?
Duplicate posts are permitted here when separated
by a differing date or 8-12 hours, but perhaps you
enjoy being a thread nanny?
I'll go have a try...lol.
Except that they haven't declared anyhting yet. They still try to trick people by denying that they aret left wing rags.
But listen, YOU did NOTHING wrong.
The other posting was YESTERDAY at
That posting had 1,038 viewings.
Yours already has over 540!
Without your posting, I would have missed this column.
Still should only be posted once.
And I should be taller.........what's your point?
. . . as opposed to the MsM, which reinforces the sectarian views of - the MsM. Specifically, the view that nothing actually matters except PR.Yes, I know: A purely objective viewpoint does not exist in the cosmos or in politics.
What's with the "purely?" Claiming to be objective is claiming to be wise, and claiming to be wise is arrogant, as only a journalist writing in his own paper or on his own radio station can be.Yes, I know: Today's media foodfights are mild compared with the viciousness of pamphleteers and partisan newspapers of old, from colonial times forward. Yes, I know: The notion of a neutral "mainstream" national media gained a dominant following only in World War II and in its aftermath, when what turned out to be a temporary moderate consensus came to govern the country.
When your opposition is politically crippled, you think you are moderate because nobody points out limitations in your thinking.Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it's pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things.
Story selection - what's the lead, and what's on page A13, and what's not even in the paper - is in the eye of the beholder. And there's nothing "neutral" about those decisions. That makes a mockery of "the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press."
Maybe they could restore their credibility by auditioning for American Idol.
He has no valid point.
Just being a thread nanny.
The first posting has a grand total of 35 replies.
The MSM "creates" the news it wants to report, or twists the facts of what is said or done by the Administration. So, why should President Bush give these morons more ammunition? That is what is truly eating at the MSM. Because Bush doesn't give them additional data on which to create more lies, with the availability of the internet, they know the lies they do create are soon obliterated.
That is what we once had, and what we need. In such a melieu, no one has any illusions that there is a magic potion which is or should be poured over the whole newspaper, except for the editorial page. In reality the editorial page is only there to "position" the rest of the newspaper as not being like the editorial page.
I will miss the old days when I was spoon fed my news from one or two snobbish arrogant elitists that knew what was good for me.
It was easier in the old days when us ignorant Americans didn't know how to think for ourselves. Maybe we should still consider looking to Hollywood and all the Michael Moores to tell us what to think. Yah think?(sarcasm off)
You call it being a thread nanny...I call it volunteering some time to improve the quality of FR.
There is a certain sadness in this. America has always stood above the fray of other countries' media by having a media that was, at least in perception, unbiased. In a generation or so is all media in the U.S. going to be like one big Crossfire shouting match? Part of me hopes a new MSM rises in the place of the old one that corrects past defects.
"We have a president who feels it's almost a point of honor not to hold more press conferences"
We watched Clinton's press conferences become essentially cheerleading sessions with miscreants taken personally to the woodshed by the President, while GWB's press conferences are hostile confrontations packed with leading questions and cynical presumptions. Good riddance.
Separately, honest question: Would you intentionally repost a thread just because the 12 hours had elapsed? In that situation, I always find the old thread, and post a new reply to it.
There, there, it's all right . . . you don't really have to think for yourself, just read only my postings on FR here and don't bother your poor little head with considering the possibility that I might be wrong! As long as you don't do any reading other than what I post, I will assure you that I am right, and all will be right with the world! </sarcasm>
In this situation, the last thing the AMMP needed was to aim wildly at the president and not only miss, but be seen as having a political motivation in attacking in the first place. Were Dan Rather and Mary Mapes after the truth or victory when they broadcast their egregiously sloppy story about Bush's National Guard Service? The moment it made air it began to fall apart, and eventually was shredded by factions within the AMMP itself, conservative national outlets and by the new opposition party that is emerging: The Blogger Nation. It's hard to know now who, if anyone, in the "media" has any credibility.
We have mods for this.
No, I do NOT intentionally post duplicates.
You have still refused to acknowledge that duplicate
postings are permitted and welcomed after a period
of time has elapsed between the first posting.
In the case of this article, it was posted YESTERDAY,
thus "I" and a whole lot of others would have missed
it, had the new FReeper not posted it.