Year of the Blog
In light of recent events (more recent than Katrina) that produces embarrassing journalistic "high points" such as this:
Is it any wonder that newspapers are floundering in their own failures? And that more and more people are turning to alternative media, such as blogs?
The media hysteria surrounding Katrina is still disgusting, as many people still believe the myths; and MSM still regards its coverage as a high point in journalism.
I'm not a harsh critic on the media over their misreporting of the 12 miners, last night. And I certainly think it's ridiculous for those wishing to assign blame for their emotional turmoil to threaten with lawsuits. Sometimes there are honest mistakes and that's just the way it is.
But there is plenty to blame-hand the media for. One thing I hate, is how FOX, MSNBC, and CNN did the around-the-clock style of reporting in Virginia. I feel for the family members who are on edge, I really do; but I don't need to follow the story like that. I want to hear what else is going on in the world; and all I am being offered is analysts telling me nothing new, that they haven't already covered an hour ago. It's like this slow speed pursuit by the local FOX network I witnessed a few years ago. I sat there watching, because they had pre-empted a favorite TV program, and I kept hoping they would let it go and just give me the round-up at 10pm, during their regular news time slot. But they didn't. They followed this slow-speed pursuit for the entire hour. I could just as well be watching paint dry instead of listening to the newscaster say, "and there he turned on his turn signal to make another lane change..." What a complete waste of time! The only thing I can think of, is that they are capitalizing on the potential sensationalism. Even though they will never admit to it, but the only reason for such live coverage is the potential to see some grisly end; something network censors will not allow, should the event not be covered live.
An addiction for if-it-bleeds-it-leads tragedy TV and agenda-driven journalism are reasons not often acknowledged by those who still rely on MSM for shaping their understanding of events unfolding in the world. Amazing that there are those who still live in denial over liberal media bias. From Mapes, to Rather, to CBS' Les Mooves.
For the Chinese, it may be the Year of the Dog; but for all people who are losing their faith and trust in old media...in its ability to report with fairness and accuracy....it will be the Year of the Blog.
This isn't to say that there isn't a place for mainstream media in this new world. The ones who will survive will be the ones who learn to adapt and make use of new media; but what should occur is a weaning away from the over-reliance from any one, single media news outlet.
As a side note: I'd like to thank Bos'un for inviting me to be a guest contributor on his fine blog. I will be cross-posting this over at the Bos'un Locker.
Hat tip: Radioblogger for the photo.
Is it any wonder that newspapers are floundering in their own failures? And that more and more people are turning to alternative media, such as blogs?
The media hysteria surrounding Katrina is still disgusting, as many people still believe the myths; and MSM still regards its coverage as a high point in journalism.
I'm not a harsh critic on the media over their misreporting of the 12 miners, last night. And I certainly think it's ridiculous for those wishing to assign blame for their emotional turmoil to threaten with lawsuits. Sometimes there are honest mistakes and that's just the way it is.
But there is plenty to blame-hand the media for. One thing I hate, is how FOX, MSNBC, and CNN did the around-the-clock style of reporting in Virginia. I feel for the family members who are on edge, I really do; but I don't need to follow the story like that. I want to hear what else is going on in the world; and all I am being offered is analysts telling me nothing new, that they haven't already covered an hour ago. It's like this slow speed pursuit by the local FOX network I witnessed a few years ago. I sat there watching, because they had pre-empted a favorite TV program, and I kept hoping they would let it go and just give me the round-up at 10pm, during their regular news time slot. But they didn't. They followed this slow-speed pursuit for the entire hour. I could just as well be watching paint dry instead of listening to the newscaster say, "and there he turned on his turn signal to make another lane change..." What a complete waste of time! The only thing I can think of, is that they are capitalizing on the potential sensationalism. Even though they will never admit to it, but the only reason for such live coverage is the potential to see some grisly end; something network censors will not allow, should the event not be covered live.
An addiction for if-it-bleeds-it-leads tragedy TV and agenda-driven journalism are reasons not often acknowledged by those who still rely on MSM for shaping their understanding of events unfolding in the world. Amazing that there are those who still live in denial over liberal media bias. From Mapes, to Rather, to CBS' Les Mooves.
For the Chinese, it may be the Year of the Dog; but for all people who are losing their faith and trust in old media...in its ability to report with fairness and accuracy....it will be the Year of the Blog.
This isn't to say that there isn't a place for mainstream media in this new world. The ones who will survive will be the ones who learn to adapt and make use of new media; but what should occur is a weaning away from the over-reliance from any one, single media news outlet.
As a side note: I'd like to thank Bos'un for inviting me to be a guest contributor on his fine blog. I will be cross-posting this over at the Bos'un Locker.
Hat tip: Radioblogger for the photo.
posted by The WordSmith from Nantucket at 1/04/2006 09:20:00 PM
2 Comments:
Smithy, you said, "I'm not a harsh critic on the media over their misreporting of the 12 miners, last night."
Well, I am. But not because anyone's to blame. Those miners would have died whether the reporters had been accurate or not.
But they failed to verify the veracity of their stories. They are professionals. They know better than to write stories based on rumor. That is inexcusable.
I must be right. Both ER and Lone Ranger agreed with me, and what's even more surprising, they agreed with each other!
Or all 3 of you could be wrong! (^_~)
TV on the grounds reporting, I'm not as harsh on. They called it as they saw it, as the jubilation unfolded in front of them; from there, it just snowballed. It was "only" 3 hours before things got straightened out. What I am more critical of are the papers that ran with the stories without verifying before going to print.
Post a Comment
<< Home