![]() ![]() ![]() |
|
Mo' Press Bias
Posted by Stephen Green · 11 June 2004
The Hollywood Reporter looks at all the Reagan coverage, and decides that Brokow and Jennings were wrong to complain that it was all too much: They needn't worry, because if the Internet is an accurate guide for what's on the minds of Americans -- and studies indicate that it is -- then the public in big numbers is craving news about the recently deceased former president. But then the very next sentence reads: The major online news sites, not surprisingly, have dedicated an inordinate amount of space to Reagan, and the strategy seems to have paid off. [emphasis added.] Merriam-Webster defines inordinate as "exceeding reasonable limits." Which is it, Mr. Hollywood Reporter: Is the Reagan coverage what the people want, or is it inordinate? Big Media thinks the correct answer is, of course, "both." What the people want -- what the audience they serve wants -- is not what the press thinks is reasonable. So when you read stories like this and feel disdain for the press, remember that the feeling is mutual. Comments
I think the answer is that Mr. Hollywood Reporter has no idea of the exact meaning of "inordinate," and thinks it's just a swellegant way of saying "lots." Kind of like scribes who use "penultimate" to mean "the best" instead of the more-mundane, but accurate, "next to last." Posted by: tim at June 11, 2004 01:07 PMThe news media has had it all its own way for many years. Journalists have felt free to flay the pubic with its supposed wit, while despising the rubes who consume their swil and pay the bills. Times are changing. Technology is putting more power in the hands of the people. And some of the people are not very happy with the "masters" who have been force feeding them garbage for so long. Posted by: Blythe at June 11, 2004 01:13 PMBlythe, and your post above about the Baby Bells, both hit on the same problem and the growing solution. The media has essentially had a liberal monopoly on the dissemination of news - until now. There has been much written lately about the "norming" of liberal and Leftist bias in the newsroom. They believe that the "elites" have the solutions to all our problems, if only the sheeple would follow their lead. But the monopoly is over. I haven't listened to a major network newscast, read a newspaper, or a news magazine in forever. Yet I am better informed about world events than all of my acquaintances. But now I bypass the biased filter of the MSM and go straight to source material. When you treat your customers with disdain, they will drop you like a bad habit when given a reasonable replacement. The phone companies and the MSM are in for a rude awakening. And I'm lovin' it. Posted by: Bruce at June 11, 2004 02:46 PMAmen, Bruce! Posted by: Barbara Skolaut at June 11, 2004 05:57 PMIt is time the MSM lost some of their power When Ronald Reagan was president I lived From what I saw and heard I gathered that If I believed this and I did, what about I expect, if they do not become a blog President Reagan deserved all the respect The power is still there, and they are going More people are seeing the fact of the bias In fact, the three main anchors were complaining about there being too much Of course, they were being dems, not Keep blogging and we will keep learning. Posted by: Carole at June 12, 2004 12:32 AM |
MDS - Give Until It Hurts Terror War Scorecard Watching America 50 Things American Cancer Ablation Center Buy VodkaPundit Stuff
"...the ideal substance of style combo."
Ann Althouse
Across the Atlantic
American Realpolitik
Albion's Seedlings
Justene Adamec
The Argument Clinic
Todd A
Moe Freedman
Allah Is In the House
Body in Mind
Ben Domenech
Duck Season
Banana Counting Monkey
Ted Barlow
Eric Alterman
American Times
|
![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() ![]() |