Posted on 11/21/2008 10:17:50 AM PST by jazusamo
One of the most powerful media figures has blamed the newspapers downward plunge in circulation and profits on the fact that they have forfeited the trust and loyalty of their readers. But I think his basis for saying this is misplaced or incomplete.
According to Rupert Murdoch, who offered this diagnosis of newspaper troubles, the problem lies in the "complacency and condescension" in some newsrooms. He says, "The complacency stems from having enjoyed a monopoly - and now finding they have to compete for an audience they once took for granted. The condescension that many show their readers is an even bigger problem. It takes no special genius to point out that if you are contemptuous of your customers, you are going to have a hard time getting them to buy your product. Newspapers are no exception."
I'd say the problem runs far deeper than that. The problem is that the mainstream media has now become a lapdog and bootlicker of the Obama administration and during the campaign, and now during the transition, have demonstrated they are simply cheerleaders and propagandists for President-elect Barack Obama and have totally abandoned journalistic standards calling for fair and balanced reporting on Mr. Obama and on other national issues. In my view, the mainstream media pulled off a virtual coup by defrauding the voters into accepting an unqualified candidate who was never vetted properly.
The mainstream media continues to amaze even its most critical observers by going ever deeper into the journalistic sewer. I keep thinking the mainstream media can't get any worse, but it continues to prove I'm wrong.
Mr. Obama is now in the early stages of his transition period, and already the front-page of Newsweek portrays him as Lincoln, Time magazine shows him as FDR, The New York Times calls the young voters the "O-generation," and ABC is putting out a DVD called "Yes, We Can: the Barack Obama Story." Howard Kurtz, media writer of the Washington Post, described this all as a "giddy sense of boosterism." He should have added an unprofessional and biased slant on the news. Perhaps he might have also said the mainstream media have been drinking too much Obama Kool-Aid, leading to the Obamania Derangement Syndrome.
Charles Krauthammer, the great columnist, said after reading one Newsweek cover story on Mr. Obama, that it would not have any adjectives left over to describe the Second Coming. During the campaign and transition the mainstream media have done everything but officially declare Mr. Obama a Messiah, Savior and the Second Coming. They only imply that, and their coverage has come close to canonizing and deifying the Great One. There is no limit to the extent the mainstream media will now go to push their Chosen One, and if the present trend continues he will be declared a saint for his inaugural address.
Worse than all that is the mainstream media makes no pretense of being fair and balanced. As they wallow in their journalistic malpractice, they have no shame. Even literature prepared by the Obama campaign or the Obama administration would not be so over the edge in selling Mr. Obama, as they would fear readers might suspect that what is too good to be true probably is - a fraud. The mainstream media has abandoned all journalistic principles and shows no shame while they produce an endless flow of biased, dishonest and fraudulent journalism.
In my view, it's not the mainstream newspapers' complacency and condescension that caused the loss of trust and confidence; it's their fundamental dishonesty and failure to deliver the fair and balanced reporting and information the public wants. The public doesn't want to read Pravda or the writing, raving and ranting of a Joseph Goebbels-type that tells the big lie to make his points. That's where we are, and that's what is dooming the mainstream media.
I would say the public has moved even beyond a position of distrust toward the mainstream media. I for one see it as a force more dangerous to democracy than terrorism. We have been successful in fighting terrorism and keeping the homeland secure. But the mainstream media is not under control and in fact is getting worse by the day and consequently more damaging to democracy by the day. So there is not only distrust of the mainstream media but also positive and intense hatred for what it is and what it is doing.
The bottom line is that readers simply don't trust the mainstream media, and that's fatal to any media outlet. Mr. Murdoch got both sides of the trust issue right. First, he said the public has loss trust in the media. Second, he also mentions the other half of the trust issue, when he said the editors and reporters don't trust their readers. Mr. Murdoch wrote, "A recent American study reported that many editors and reporters simply do not trust their readers to make good decisions. Let's be clear about what this means. This is a polite way of saying that these editors and reporters think their readers are too stupid to think for themselves."
Mr. Murdoch does make one critically important point by explaining some of the impact of all the new technology and sources of news that we now have. Mr. Murdoch said, "It used to be that a handful of editors could decide what was news - and what was not. They acted as sort of demigods. If they ran a story, it became news. If they ignored an event, it never happened. Today, editors are losing this power. The Internet, for example, provides access to thousands of new sources that cover things an editor might ignore. And if you aren't satisfied with that, you can start up your own blog and cover and comment on the news yourself. Journalists like to think of themselves as watchdogs, but they haven't always responded well when the public calls them to account."
I know how arrogant and indifferent to criticism the mainstream media can be. I've been involved in several conferences with Philadelphia Inquirer editors about its anti-Israel bias, and afterward, I found I would have been better off talking to the wall, which might have been more receptive and I know would have had more sense. This was under the Knight-Ridder management teams, but from the new owner's product I see only marginal improvement. This means that the public can avoid the toxic journalism of the mainstream media simply by avoiding it, boycotting it and finding alternatives they can trust.
The mainstream media malpractice during and after the election represents the greatest malfeasance and media failure in history and if not counteracted has the potential to inflict grievous and even fatal damage to the greatest democracy in the history of the world.
If that's not bad enough, it gets worse. The public doesn't seem to care. Sen. McCain tried to make media malpractice into a campaign issue, but that had no traction. Here's the way Stephen Spruiell explained it, writing in the National Review (Dec. 1) in an article entitled "Going Mainstream: The Right Faces New Media Realities":
"The McCain campaign complained mightily about these and other instances of media malpractice, and the public shrugged. In perhaps the most blatant case of overt bias against McCain, New York Times executive editor Bill Keller said that each complaint from the McCain campaign made him want to 'find the toughest McCain story we've got and put it on the front page, just to show them they can't get away with it.'
"When the top newspaper editor in the country is openly discussing his strategy to attack the Republican nominee through the news pages and almost no one cares, complaining about bias just isn't going to accomplish much.
"The mainstream media have staked their future on Obama; that was evident in the way they conducted themselves during the campaign. Economic and political forces are driving notionally objective news organizations toward overt partisanship. Now is the time to invest in conservative alternatives and work to secure mainstream reception for conservative voices. The media game has changed and have to get better at playing it."
As long as so many people rely on the mainstream media for their news and information, Republicans and conservatives are going to operate under a serious handicap. So there are some remedies.
First, the Republicans have to do more to directly communicate news and information to supporters, potential supporters and everyone else. This is much more practicable with the advent of the Internet, e-mail, blogs and all the rest. In an interesting article, Patrick Ruffini of the National Review (Dec. 1), in an article titled "Roots of Defeat: Let Us Study And Emulate The Left's Online Tactics," there is an explanation of how the Democrats used the Internet, how they have done a better job of using the new technology, and how the Republicans have to catch up and surpass them in the use of the Internet and the new technology.
The Republicans don't do a good job of getting the word out. I don't think I received one good document or e-mail from the Republican National Committee setting forth material designed to help sell their view and refute their opponent's arguments.
Second, the pubic has to be mobilized to effectively criticize mainstream media bias by all means available, such as letters-to-the-editor, calls to talk shows and support of groups that fight media bias.
Third, the public has to start inflicting economic damage on the dishonest, fraudulent, and biased mainstream media. That means individual and organized boycotts of the mainstream media, canceling subscriptions and discontinuing advertising in them.
Fourth, the public has to start going to alternative media outlets that can be trusted to give the whole picture. There are hundreds of such sites and here are some good places to start:
* Newspapers: The Wall Street Journal, Investor's Business Daily, The Washington Times, The New York Post, and The Philadelphia Bulletin. One of the best conservative papers, The New York Sun, recently folded. So if you want these alternative voices to survive, you better support them.
* Magazines: The National Review, The Weekly Standard, and Commentary.
* Broadcasters: Fox News Network and WNTP-AM (990) both around the clock. The 990 lineup includes Bill Bennett, Dennis Prager, Michael Medved, Hugh Hewitt, Michael Savage, Mark Levine, and Mike Gallagher, many of which have excellent Web sites of their own. Also Glen Beck, Sean Hannity, and Rush Limbaugh on WPHT-AM (1210).
* Web sites: Townhall.com, Frontpage.com, and Drudgereport.com.
* Web sites specializing in media bias: camera.org and honestreporting.com.
* Blogs: Pajamasmedia.com, instapundit.com, and littlegreenfootballs.com.
Fifth, support the Republican Party and other voices of opposition that provide the kind of information that the mainstream media ignores. You have to put your money where your mouth is to assure that the public gets both sides of the ongoing political controversies.
Herb Denenberg is a former Pennsylvania Insurance Commissioner, Pennsylvania Public Utility Commissioner, and professor at the Wharton School. He is a longtime Philadelphia journalist and consumer advocate. He is also a member of the Institute of Medicine of the National Academy of the Sciences. His column appears daily in The Bulletin. You can reach him at advocate@ thebulletin.us.
Once upon a time Newpapers were very partisan & almost captive of either major political party. Then competition forced the newspapers to invent the concept of “objectivity” in News reporting in an effort to grow readership & thrive. But then Radio, TV, Cable TV & the Internet came along delivering a flurry of punches to readership. Now the newspaper industry has lost confidence in “impartiality & objectivity” even though they still make those claims. In reality, they are emulating the partisanship & contentiousness of Talk Radio & Internet Blogs in an effort to compete with them... and their still losing readership.
The physical print Media is a money-losing dinosaur because they can be cost-competitive in News delivery, and they can’t figure out a way to get compensated for their basic News reporting function (what little of it that they still do.)
>This coming four years will be a test of the dedication of our fine military, hopefully they will endure and overcome.
F* that! I want these slime-dogs, these powerful-corrupt, gone and out! I want Justice to be applied uniformly, and not like, say Franklin Rains who embezzled $90 Million and was let go with a slap on the wrist and a $1 Million fine!
How much would you or I get if we stole say, $10,000 in government funds? Or even in private funds?
Maybe the doom-sayers are right and we are headed for Civ War 2, is so, I can only hope that it will clean things out and these super-corrupt politicians will be hung for the treasons against their own country that they are committing every day.
It's not clear to me that this is so. If it were true, how do you explain Blogging, the Daily Kos, and even (here it comes) FreeRepublic.
We may not be emblematic of the public as a whole, but I find people who don't actively seek their News to be generally ignorant of current events & basic civics. Witness Jay Leno's "Jaywalking" segment.
One thing not mentioned is the late night comics like Leno and Letterman. They have a hand in creating negative images of Bush, McCain, Palin,,,etc., by the biased jokes they tell.
I am for free speech. I prefer a positive approach (providing alternatives that solve problems) rather than a negative approach (giving up). I believe that Government should not be involved in controlling free speech. I also believe that there should be transparency between what a news organization says they are (non-biased)and what they really report.
I propose a news media rating system based on the model in use by the Motion Picture Association of America in rating movies. Every TV news organization, Newspaper, radio station, blogger, etc. could register to become a member. There would be two ways to register:
1. Partisan. For a small fee (to cover expenses) and the submission of a position statement anyone could register as a partisan. The position statement would be available for anyone to view on the organization's website. Talk radio like Rush, Hannity, Air America would fall into this category. Web-based partisan sites like Free Republic, Democratic Underground etc. would also fall into this category.
2. Journalistic News. To be certified in this category a news organization would open themselves up to scrutiny from the Association. This could be in the form of an “A-F” rating scale in terms of bias. The rank would appear as an icon on TV or web or print, or an announcement on the radio. Even the reporters could all be ranked by bias (most biased to least). The organization could contract with organizations like MRC and FAIR to provide evidence for the rating. Perhaps the political parties could appoint members to the review board.
With this scale, when people are reading, watching, or listening to a news program, they would know whether it is partisan or journalism. They could find out either the political position or the relative amount of bias of the source.
Once this idea is further developed and ready, then the steps outlined in the articles would help put it in place. News organizations could be boycotted and protested until they join. Political figures could refuse to be interviewed or appear on a broadcast until the news organization join.
I believe that both conservatives and liberals could support this idea. I believe this supports free speech. This keeps the government out of it.
Don’t misunderstand me, I want the slime-dogs gone also. I was saying we and our military are stuck for at least the next four years with BHO. We have to concentrate on removing as many of the slimes as we can in two years.
First, before we do anything else, we need to force congress to rescind Al Gores’s telecommunications act of 1996. There will be no free press again in this country until that’s done.
If we boycott and bankrupt the so called American news agencies, they’ll only be sold outright to foreign owners (thanks to “free trade” and the telecomm act), who will not allow news to take proAmerican pro independent American pro indivdiual rights views at all. If its Saudis who buy it you’ll get pro Saudi pro islam pro shariah law news. If it Europeans you will get anti first world pro socialism views (because they have been bought out by the islamists), if its china, you’ll get chinese propoganda news.
In no way will you ever get anything that will reflect the heart of America and American values and ideals ever again.
The idea that our news will come from foreign companies or government is not repellent to our congress or the white house, and with so much foreign influence they are about to wipe America and American culture off the global map.
Somehow the NFL seems exempt from this rule.
Leno’s “Jaywalking” and other segments like it reflect how utterly ignorant many people are to the point they almost seem staged though I know they’re not but I see your point.
That’s something to think about. As for media free speech check the link at post 27.
Thanks for linking that and will get back to listen as soon as I can.
http://www.dailymotion.com/video/k6KUDv1wzraWhwlBt1
Our current media bears little difference from the old Soviet Union.
20 years ago Russians I knew laughed at the media as it differed little from the country they escaped, they were conservative to the core and successful in America.
They told me how they lived in Russia and how when they were driving through neighborhoods in America that they couldn’t believe all of the houses. We have at least half the country now that doesn’t understand how lucky they are to live here and can do nothing but point out America’s faults.
It is a odd happening that once a party holds the presidential office, it often forgets and even seemingly ignores and discards the inspiration (that was usually sold nice enough in the campaign season to get the candidate a win--in our last case George Bush the first round 2000. The second 2004 was about keeping him in.) that got him in the office in the first place.
President Bush--love him or resent him or both-- discarded fiscal conservatism and along with him so did the stand by the GOP. Why is this? To a certain extent there is the issue of not wanting to undermine the so called 'leader of our party'. Why call the president the leader of our party at that stage though? I think that is a mistake as now he is the leader of all Americans and has another responsibility as much as we would like to see our Republican presidents tow seamlessly the party line and make it alive in law and deed. Except for Reagan they rarely have. So maybe we need to change such a title--most likely given by the MSMediots anyway.
I wonder if the party fades back into the woodwork during these times and instead veers according to condition as opposed to holds steady with its ideals molding instead the sell of the 'product' to fit the need of the day. The product itself should not change much at all, maybe shifts in certain types of platforms, but there should be fundamental truths regarding the party and one of those should ALWAYS be fiscal conservatism and responsibly, less government in our lives, and upholding the traditional interpretation of the constitution as opposed to changing as one sees fit to fit their new degrading morals (or old for some.) The cross fertilization can work against the party if the president veers away from core ideals and maybe in the future we need to steel ourselves against such cross fertilization and instead strengthen the media campaign ourselves toward selling our product absent of the president and in fact in a way that pushes the president toward our side.
After all Reagan knew to go directly to the American people if he couldn't sell it there in Washington and the GOP needs to know this works as well and make it difficult for even its own party's president to get away with such great discard of core values. In the end the president will be gone, but the party will live in and it must be self contained.
Your comment spurned new consideration and served to remind. These political parties we choose mostly because of the ideals they espouse along with the values they uphold (UH--in a perfect world--UGH!)
I call all this out as I feel it is time to make certain changes in structures and behaviors that work against the fulfillment of carrying our ideals to the public and seeing them carried out over the long term--not seemingly ever changing to just win election. It is the sell that should change. The focus to what is current. Not the disposal of ideals that are fundamental. Sort of like many of us view the upholding of our constitution over time.
Very good point. Other than tuning in a few times this year to see just how obnoxious they are I haven't watched them for years because of that.
Thanks for linking the Yuri Bezmenov video, it’s a very good piece.
You’re correct about the nearly fifty percent of Americans that don’t know how well off they are living here. They’ve grown up having most everything handed to them not realizing the rest of the world is not like that.
Great article!
Come to think of it, it is something of a wonder that there are pubbies in Congress at all.
Great point! This is important. It was so out of hand and over the top this time. Such a violation. Once again reminding me that the new GOP themselves must have pit bull element. One that can fight in both a direct and a holistic way (positive press etc, positive selling of ideals of the candidates that fit the party and why this is important) this sort of unfairness and attacks on the soul of the candidates as the liberal media did at every turn to President Bush and to Sarah Palin.
President Bush though needed a pit bull who confronted this in his office. The GOP should have their own office too, but once one is in office it is clearly critical that Republican candidates going forward must stop this, counteract this, or minimize it within and we can support as best we can from without.
These partisan attacks unfortunately will also get worse. If one can imagine there is any area to get worse in.
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.