Answering Back to the News Media, Using the Internet

New York Times ^ | January 2, 2006 | KATHARINE Q. SEELYE

[Maceman]

Count for McCain to be in on it.

And count on Bush to sign it into law.

[filbert]

Read more at nytimes.com ...

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.

[WorkingClassFilth]

Please recall hillary's ominous pronouncement about needing to rethink a "gate-keeping" function on the internet after the RAT's had their @sses kicked in the 1990's. To her credit, she saw the meaning of the net long before many did(even here on FR). Let's not stupidly discredit the enemy by thinking they're all fools like the blind and masturbating staff at the old gray whore. Some, like hillary and wolves, can actually formulate a pack strategy and attempt to take down prey much larger than themselves...

[kerryusama04]

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.

[Grampa Dave]

"From what the excerpt says they are beginning to 'get it'. Expect legislation soon."

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

[Grampa Dave]

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.

http://www.freerepublic.com/focus/f-news/1550250/posts

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.

[BlessedBeGod]

"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."

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?

[GOPJ]

Thanks for the ping.

[Liz]

Heheh----happy days are here, again.

[SueRae]

And it couldn't have happened to a more deserving bunch.

[Grampa Dave]

" 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.

[HighlyOpinionated]

Jamie McIntyre: "It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."

So Jamie McIntyre admits CNN has an agenda!? They have to tell US what the information means? We're not capable of understanding and drawing our own conclusions?

My, what a judgmental and demeaning statement that is. CNN is the "elite" and we, the plebeians, with no ability to comprehend, must be "told" what the information given means?

ExCUZE, me, but I have a college education and I read and I have a molecule of brain cells and I can even use a computer as well as a library to research for information. WHY should I believe YOUR interpretation, Jamie McIntyre and CNN? How many times has CNN pushed an agenda instead of reporting just the facts of a case?

That's a rhetorical question, yet, there's someone at CNN who will sit at a desk trying to think of the one time CNN did not have an agenda. And that person's skeleton will be discovered, covered with spider webs, in fifty years.

Even on the first day the station opened, first line of the first person who said "This is CNN" -- had an agenda.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

Thanks for the ping....Hugh Hewitt's Blog has a bit on this (Why is it in the Business section?):

Power of the Blogs" and the Sherpas Who Write Them.

*******************Excerpt******

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....

[PJ-Comix]

Count for McCain to be in on it.

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.

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From Captain's Quarters Blog:

January 02, 2006
Journos Reckon With Empowered Readership, Still Mostly Clueless

*******************************Excerpt**********

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:

**************snip*********************

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....

[Ernest_at_the_Beach]

From another Blog:

Memo from NY Times to Confidential Sources: You're Toast

*******************************Excerpt*****************

Memo from: Bill Keller, Executive Editor The New York Times
To: Our Confidential Sources
re: Screwed, Blued & Tattooed. Sorry.

Gentlemen:

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 effective—I 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...........

[JoeSixPack1]

"...We've pretended to be like priests turning water to wine, like it's a secret process. Those days are gone."

Amen!

[Liz]

LOL-----beautiful.

[nuclady]

Jamie McIntyre: "It's more important that we take that information and tell you what it means."


That is the one sentence that drove me nuts. Thank you for your comments, I totally agree. The thing that strikes me, is that is what the entire Democrap mindset is: you are too stupid to understand what is good for you. Ex: Hitlary's comment on 'we have to take some of these things away from you for the common good....'

Reminds me of the days before the Gutenburg press, when the Bible was printed and the 'peasants' learned to read, and understand. Hello???????

You hit the nail on the head!!

[ForGod'sSake]

A couple of my favorite passages:

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???