Skip to comments.Answering Back to the News Media, Using the Internet
Posted on 01/02/2006 4:25:30 AM PST by infocats
Never pick a fight with someone who buys ink by the barrel, or so goes the old saw. For decades, the famous and the infamous alike largely followed this advice. Even when subjects of news stories felt they had been misunderstood or badly treated, they were unlikely to take on reporters or publishers, believing that the power of the press gave the press the final word.
The Internet, and especially the amplifying power of blogs, is changing that. Unhappy subjects discovered a decade ago that they could use their Web sites to correct the record or deconstruct articles to expose what they perceived as a journalist's bias or wrongheaded narration.
But now they are going a step further. Subjects of newspaper articles and news broadcasts now fight back with the same methods reporters use to generate articles and broadcasts - taping interviews, gathering e-mail exchanges, taking notes on phone conversations - and publish them on their own Web sites. This new weapon in the media wars is shifting the center of gravity in the way that news is gathered and presented, and it carries implications for the future of journalism.
Just ask "Nightline," the ABC News program, which broadcast a segment in August about intelligent design that the Discovery Institute, a conservative clearinghouse for proponents of intelligent design, did not like very much. The next day, the institute published on its Web site the entire transcript of the nearly hourlong interview that "Nightline" had conducted a few days earlier with one of the institute's leaders, not just the brief quotes that had appeared on television.....[more]
(Excerpt) Read more at nytimes.com ...
From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon.
Count for McCain to be in on it.
The good news is that even if the Govt. and media succeed in censoring the Internet, technology will provide a way around it.
The truth will always come out in the end. McCain and his 'Act', the media whining, the concern of all politicians who cannot control the message - nothing will prevent it.
I wonder where the liberals get their unfailing respect for the "truth." Certainly not in our universities. There is no truth there. There is only the manipulation of language for political power.
Elitist BS, as usual.
Oh, they 'preserve' the truth alright. They just don't print it if it can benefit an evil Republican. They take the attitude of the Colonel in "A Few Good Men", "The truth? You couldn't handle the truth!"
That's what MSM reporters do every day -- but they get upset when ordinary people turn the tables and do the same thing to them.
"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said. "I don't worry so much anymore about finding out every little detail five minutes before someone else. It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."
CNN is widely reviled by the military -- I hate to read quotes from one of their reporters telling me what a great job CNN is doing.
..."Here's your chance to go behind the scenes with the gatekeepers of the national media to see how they screen out viewpoints and information that don't fit their stereotypes," Rob Crowther, the institute's spokesman, wrote on the Web site...
..."All these developments have forced journalists to respond in a variety of ways, including becoming more open about their methods and techniques and perhaps more conscious of how they filter information."
Don't tick off a guy who buys his pixels by the Terabyte.
But, but, but, don't you know that "CNN is the most trusted name in news"? They tell us so on their radio news updates on the hour, every hour. /sarc off
Yes, we'll see how important the "public's right to know" really is...
If that isn't a glaring example of the need for the internet, I don't know what is.
Whenever I'm listening to Rush in the afternoons and ABCNews comes on at the top of the hour, I do a voiceover for their intro blurb:
"And NOW here's the latest on how Bush sucks from ABCNews"
More often than not, the first piece is a Bush hitpiece...
It's the same with CNN. The local classical music station uses their news updates. If there's no really important news, they all too often lead with the latest story about U.S. military deaths in Iraq. The other thing I've noticed about these news updates, they'll always quote more Democrats in controversial stories, or they'll give them longer voice clips.
And count on Bush to sign it into law.
NYT will get my money some time after Hell freezes over. They'll get my clicks on the Web some time after that.
Old Media needs to be reminded of the FULL First Amendment:
Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances.I will not concede that my freedom of speech is in any way inferior to the NYT's freedom of the press.
This article seemed to be uniquely fair. I think the author was trying to insinuate that now the world is free to see the process, that the end product will be somewhat deficient because the interviewers are now subject to scrutiny. Of course, the converse is true because they are no longer allowed to cherry pick their info in order to push their thinly veiled agendas.
The stocks of most of the MSM mediot companies took a real pounding in 2005. You can bet that they and their Congressit buddies are getting ready to save what is left of their bacon
I posted this thread yesterday. 2005 was not a good year stock price wise for the electronic MSM, and 2005 was more of a disaster for most of the big fishwraps.
Media stocks flat; majors down for `05 Big newspaper publishers' valuations slumped
Market Watch ^ | 12/30/2005 | William Spain
Posted on 01/01/2006 10:15:30 AM PST by Grampa Dave
WASHINGTON (MarketWatch) - Media stocks ended the last day of 2005 trading pretty much flat as shares of all the big conglomerates stalled.
NWSNWS16.61, -0.06, -0.4%) , Disney (DIS: Walt Disney Company (The) (Holding Company) News, chart, profile Last: 23.97-0.20-0.83%
DISDIS23.97, -0.20, -0.8%) and Time Warner (TWX: time warner inc com News, chart, profile Last: 17.44-0.04-0.23%
TWXTWX17.44, -0.04, -0.2%) ended down less than 1%, while Viacom (VIA: viacom inc cl a News, chart, profile Last: 32.76+0.34+1.05%
VIAVIA32.76, +0.34, +1.0%) was up slightly.
The four will end the year lower than where they started it. Time Warner is down 10.3% over the past 52 weeks; Viacom is off 11.7%; News Corp. is down 13.5%; and Disney has given up 13.8%.
But that isn't a patch on the valuation drops at some big newspaper companies:
The New York Times (NYT: New York Times Company News, chart, profile Last: 26.45+0.01+0.04%
NYT abd TRB have surrendered 35.2% and 28.42, respectively, since the end of 2004.
Dow Jones, (DJ: dow jones & co inc com), parent of MarketWatch, the publisher of this report, is off 17.6%
In an interview with the Times of London, Martin Sorrell the chief executive of advertising agency holding company WPP warned that while global ad spending should be up in 2006 with the help of worldwide sporting events and U.S. midterm elections, it could be a tough year for the industry in some spots.
Shares of WPP Group (UK:WPP: news, chart, profile) were down in London as were those of both its American rivals, Omnicom (OMC: and Interpublic (IPG:
William Spain is a MarketWatch staff writer in Chicago.
Awwwwwwwwwww! In other words, they're caught, and they know it!
With reporters conducting interviews more frequently by e-mail, he said, "You have to start thinking a couple of moves ahead because you're leaving a paper trail. And the truth squad mentality of some bloggers means you are apt to have your own questions thrown back at you."
"Truth Squad" mentality? My, they're upset at being exposed!
"With the Internet, with blogs, with text messages, with soldiers writing their own accounts from the front lines, so many people are trying to shape things into their own reality," he said.
And that's different from what you do, how?
Thanks for the ping.
Heheh----happy days are here, again.
And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.
" It couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.!"
Amen, and may they continue have it "happen to them" throughout 2006 and as long as they are in business.
The article --in the business ssection-- recognizes that MSM has been filtering news, has been selectively quoting sources, and has been upended by blogs that do neither.
"The good old days" when those with the access could control the story are gone. Meloncholy is the best way to describe the air of the piece's pro agenda-journalism slant. Like a buggy maker's sighs as the cars that first annoyed then disturbed finally became not a nuisance or a challenge but an eclipse.
"They will always need buggies," I am sure the best buggy assembler said to himself:
See link for the rest of Hugh's comments....
F--- McCain! I'm going to FLAT OUT make a candidate endorsement on my upcoming DUmmie FUnnies audio podcast. Hey McCain! You don't like it? Then indict me! I would LOVE to be a test case on this issue.
The media revolution of the past three years has introduced a level of empowerment to the consumers of mass media unlike anything that has ever existed before, and that empowerment comes primarily through the blogosphere and the Internet. The New York Times' Katherine Seelye explores some of the impact felt by journalists and editors at having to make themselves accountable to their readers:
What the technology allows people like me to do is to become our own newspaper, our own media outlet, with the entire blogosphere acting as oversight to my posts. It takes the same basic activities that reporters perform -- fact-gathering, quote-gathering, interviews on occasion, and publication -- and then subjects the result to a peer-review process that the media long since gave up.
It's that crucial component that Seelye misses in her article, and that the media misses when it considers the impact of the blogosphere. Blogs get their assumptions wrong and facts incorrect as well, but the natural peer-review process exposes it pretty quickly -- and our credibility suffers if we don't acknowledge it. The Exempt Media doesn't bother to do peer review or act in any kind of competitive manner at all, except in narrow geographic areas where newspapers and local TV stations compete for consumer attention.
See link for the full article....
Memo from: Bill Keller, Executive Editor The New York Times
To: Our Confidential Sources
re: Screwed, Blued & Tattooed. Sorry.
The dozen of you have been of inestimable value to the New York Times and I want you to know that we, the reporters, editors and shareholders, appreciate it. Your willingness to talk with us a year ago about your concerns surrounding NSA eavesdropping on Al Qaida conversations with their operatives in our homeland is evidence of how highly you value a free press.* It's a value we share with you and with all enlightened Americans living within our circulation footprint.
Your willingness to share highly classified information with Jim and Eric before taking it through the normal channels for internal complaints within NSA, CIA and Justice or even up to the congressional oversight committees was commendable. It allowed you to be effective, which as we all know is extremely difficult when one is in a minority position.
You helped us bring fresh light on this Administration's total disregard for American values, in that what is not explicitly legal is by definition illegal when the Administration is conservative. You showed up all those petty people who disagreed with your position, they'll be facing months of hearings and visits with their lawyers while attempting to defend a really useless attempt at defense. Talk about a win/win. Wow!
Even more, though. You can look forward to the day when the program itself is cancelled, thanks to your efforts. As it becomes less effectiveI mean, you'd have to be a pretty dense terrorist to continue to depend on phone calls after this!and the pain of running this formerly covert exercise increases what with the hearings and all, well it's just natural that it will quietly fade away. Thanks to you!
So, let me pat you on the back and add my "atta boy!" to the congratulations I'm certain you're already enjoying from so many of your friends and neighbors who've heard your story.
See link for rest...........
Danny Schechter, executive editor of MediaChannel.org and a former producer at ABC News and CNN, said that while the active participation by so many readers was healthy for democracy and journalism, it had allowed partisanship to mask itself as media criticism and had given rise to a new level of vitriol.
I dont' suppose it ever occurred to this guy that "partisanship" could mask itself as journalsim, eh. The new level of vitriol is only new to him. Angst at the media and their shenanigans has been around for more years than the internet; it's just allowed the "other" voices to be heard.
"It's now O.K. to demonize the messenger," he said. "This has led to a very uncivil discourse in which it seems to be O.K. to shout down, discredit, delegitimize and denigrate the people who are reporting stories and to pick at their methodology and ascribe motives to them that are often unfair."
Heh. And the downside is???
So I guess Schechter heard about me nicknaming Anick Jesdanun "Cookies" Jesdanun. :-)
More to come, Danny. ;-)
A search on Danny Schechter is interesting. He appears to be worn out 60 year old pusher of the Gay Agenda and hater of republicans and a strong military. The link below is interesting:
Thanks, Grampa. Speaking of media bias, did you see the article this AM with the AP calls terrorists "martyrs"? GAG.
Associated Press photo caption describes terrorist as a "martyr"
Next they'll be calling them saints.
With a tiger like "Cookies" on the case, we should be thankful the Bush imperialists aren't dropping, er, spyware on their visitors, eh? No pun intended of course.
Egad, another one! A lot of these "happy" folks fetched up in journalism. And they want to change the world; making it a better place?? Spare me!
I feel a graphic coming on. How's about the "Fudgesicle Times" or "The New Fudgesicle Times"? "The Los Angeles Fudgesicles"???
How about Fudgepackers of the MSM?
Wonder what the percentage of Gay's in the Journalism profession is....sems rather high!
Hmmm, the MSM, packing fudge so you don't have to??? Uh, packing fudge for "Pinch"???
They were there before they came out of the closet and have settled heavily into the MSM for the past two decades.
When we run these Yahoo searches on some of these MSM Fudgepackers, their electronic/paper trails of pushing the Gay Agenda often go back a decade.