In sum, the people who decide who and what gets attention are superficial.But then, you could tell that by the fact that they write to short deadlines, or even go on-air to report "breaking news." They have a saying for it, "There's nothing more worthless than yesterday's newspaper." That speaks to the imperative to make the deadline for today's newspaper. But if yesterday's newspaper is already junk, just how valuable can today's newspaper actually be?
And although Fox News Channel is supposedly less liberal than the rest of the alphabet soup, it is just as driven by deadline pressure as any other journalism outlet, and therefore is just as superficial as the rest - only slightly less negative and slightly less arrogant. The combination of superficiality, and arrogance (in its presumption of objectivity and its presumption of moral superiority over those who actually do things as opposed to merely criticizing) is what gives journalism its so-called "liberal" (actually socialist, of course) character.
Here's my take: 'News' is nothing more than what the Elite Press Corps deems worthy of printing or breaking. One glaring example of this is the underwhelmingly reported story of the NAACP's shortfall in contributions due to their stance on Gay Rights, thus resulting in the 40% cutbacks. But of course you're getting wall to wall reports on the discord among the GOP faithful.
...As you've contended and I now fully agree, 'Broadcast News Is Unnecessary And Illegitimate'.
Thanks for posting. BTTT!
BTTT