Posted on 12/30/2005 5:40:50 AM PST by StoneGiant
By JONAH GOLDBERG
THE YEAR-ENDING edition of NBC’s “Meet the Press” offered an excellent glimpse at why the elite mainstream media as we know it is facing extinction.
“Meet the Press” host Tim Russert invited NBC’s Tom Brokaw and ABC’s Ted Koppel to ladle out some observations from their deep wells of wisdom for all of the world to imbibe. These three giants of television journalism tut-tutted about one government failure after another, from the Katrina response to the government’s inability to provide health care for everybody to our dismayingly low taxes. Brokaw agreed with Koppel, Koppel agreed with Brokaw. Russert nodded as one newsman repeated what the other one just said.
For example, regarding the Hurricane Katrina episode — in which the media collectively broke all chains of objectivity in order to preen with outrage over the plight of the downtrodden — Brokaw asserted “there were no gray areas in Katrina.”
By this he meant the media was 100 percent right for portraying the federal government as 100 percent wrong. This elicited nods all around.
Brokaw even quoted Aaron Broussard, the Jefferson Parish president who openly wept on “Meet The Press” about the tardy federal response: “They didn’t come. They promised they would come and they didn’t come.”
Alas, Brokaw left out the fact that Broussard had to be invited back on the program to clarify various untruths (aka “lies”) in his original version of events. Russert let this fact fall by the wayside in this no-gray zone. And on and on it went.
Now, it’s fair to say that Brokaw, Koppel and Russert are three of the very best journalists the elite mainstream media have ever produced. Respective flaws notwithstanding, they are generally respected by viewers of various ideological outlooks for being tough and serious.
Indeed, one of the most overlooked reasons for Russert’s success at “Meet the Press” is that conservative viewers respect him enough to tune in.
But in the same way the rules tend to break down when cops are asked to investigate other cops, elite journalists see themselves as above the standards they apply to everyone else. So while Russert wouldn’t devote a whole show to nothing but softball questions for a politician or CEO, he turns into Larry King on Prozac when interviewing his colleagues.
A thick cloud of nostalgia hung over the set. Why couldn’t politicians trust journalists like in the good old days? Why must we have a sound-bite political culture? Why don’t politicians follow the agenda set by media muckety-mucks?
Such nostalgia is understandable given the culture these men grew up in. In the post-World War II era, television journalism was almost a quasi-governmental institution. There were only three networks, and their news broadcasts set the national debate and drew the nation together in a way that had never happened before.
Eventually, the establishment felt entitled to this arrangement. They forgot that this system was the unintended offspring of WWII and the Cold War and the advent of television. Before TV, American journalism was more boisterous and less revered. Today’s technological glitz notwithstanding, we are returning to the norm.
When asked to name an underreported story in ‘05, Brokaw suggested the downsizing of General Motors. Well, GM is a good illustration of what’s happening to the elite media.
One of the main reasons GM is in such trouble is that it has never won the allegiance of post-WWII consumers. The “greatest generation,” as Brokaw calls them, loved their Oldsmobiles, and they’ve been buying GM cars for 60 years.
But that generation is dying, and GM’s antiquated products (and pensions) are killing it in a more competitive environment.
Young people feel the same way about those evening news broadcasts. Fewer than 10 percent of viewers of the major network news shows are under the age of 34. The average viewer is over 60.
Meanwhile, the one institution that has been immune to the media’s prying eyes is now being scrutinized itself — not by a journalistic priesthood but by bloggers, independent media and consumers. Rather than embrace the new era, which recognizes that the elite media’s power qualifies them as worthy of scrutiny, the elite media circle the wagons.
As Ted Koppel asked at the end of “Meet the Press,” “When are you getting to the tough questions? Come on, Tim.”
You can write to Jonah Goldberg by e-mail at JonahsColum´n@aol.com.
And they accuse Bush of being in a bubble.
This was the "staging area" for the Elephants march to their burial grounds.
Institutions viewing themselves as irreplaceable tend to be replaced.
The MSM truly has no clue just how vulnerable and precarious their situation is.
10% of those under 34 watch the nightly newscasts? That's a deathknell. Forget, for a moment, that people have major credibility issues with traditional MSM outlets. Just look at that trend seperately. 3 broadcast networks fighting over 10 possible rating points for A18-34.
Hell, UPN and the WB gather more rating points in that demo combined on some nights. The network news operations now score lower in ratings than the netlets do in prime time.
There is a growing disconnect with people of all stripes for a one size fits all newscast that mirrors the declining New York Times. Conservatives loathe the inaccurate reporting, one sided commentary and slant while the growingly vocal far leftists think the news is corporate, homogonized and caters to the status quo.
That's no way to grow your markets or in this case viewership.
ABC, CBS and NBC can brainstorm all they want about delivering "content" in the form of personalized newscasts available on the net. Doesn't change the facts that if you're not trusted to begin with a change in distribution of your product. If viewers aren't tuning into your broadcasts why would they want your content any other way?
I don't feel sorry for this aging out of touch dinosaur news organizations. Despite 10 years in television and being around local news teams most of my adult life I don't feel one ounce of pity for the networks. Local TV is so much better in quality and objectivity as to render parent networks nearly irrelevant. In many cities you may get news from 4-6:30 or 7:00 and then.... the propganda sets in.
This is no way to turn around a dying business.
Bertrand Russell
British author, mathematician, & philosopher (1872 - 1970)
I don't think it will die, it will just have to mutate somewhat. Big Media got away with its leftist propaganda for so long because nobody challenged them. Things are different and even the heads of the Big Three networks and the big media rags, who are undoubtedly liberal themselves, realize that they'll have to become more honest to survive.
I will say that in my mind the leftist media, that has virtually had a stranglehold on all news Americans get for fifty years, was more dangerous than the politicians who have done so much harm. They were and still are more dangerous because they are the basis for which Americans have formed opinions in those fifty years. It was not so much the outright left-leaning propaganda, it was also the presentation of only half the news. The liberal media only aired or printed news it thought beneficial to its leftist outlook of the world.
If the news Americans had received would have been tinged with a hint of honesty, we would not be in the trouble we currently are. For one thing three thousand Americans wouldn't have been murdered on 9/11 because we would have had the realistic safeguards in effect to stop the terrorists. But I still believe network news will survive. They just won't have the power they had before. And they might be forced to add honesty to their reporting.
Meanwhile, the one institution that has been immune to the media’s prying eyes is now being scrutinized itself — not by a journalistic priesthood but by bloggers, independent media and consumers. Rather than embrace the new era, which recognizes that the elite media’s power qualifies them as worthy of scrutiny, the elite media circle the wagons.
When the weblogs brought down Howell Raines and Gerald Boyd at the New York Times in May-June 2003 over the Jayson Blair scandal, it was the sea change that told everyone of just how powerful the New Media had become. Senator Kerry's inability to respond properly to the Swift Boat Veterans, the Rathergate fiasco, and the fall of Eason Jordan at CNN werer the next steps the New Media had in destroying the power of the mainstream media.
In short, it was truly a major triumph for Alvin Toffler's idea of de-massifying the media he prophesized in the book The Third Wave way back in 1979.
With less than ten percent of viewers under the age of 34 split betwen the three major networks, the show is over.
They cannot continue with three percent each. The History channel alone probably has ten percent of the viewers.
Pomposity isn't limited to BJ Clinton and long suffering spouse Hildabeast.
Brokaw, Koppel and Russert live in a dream world of their own making. Their preening self indulgence is amusing and disgusting at the same time.
and GM’s antiquated products
please, please...they are heretofore OLD MEDIA. Let us in the New media call them what they are and speed their demise.
Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.