?

Log in

No account? Create an account
Why getting your news on the cable channels is bad... - an albuquerque not animate be armada. — LiveJournal [entries|archive|friends|userinfo]
Okrzyki, przyjaciel!

[ website | My Website ]
[ userinfo | livejournal userinfo ]
[ archive | journal archive ]

Why getting your news on the cable channels is bad... [Feb. 4th, 2009|07:20 am]
Okrzyki, przyjaciel!
If you're at all curious, you can follow the discussion of media coverage on http://www.talkingpointsmemo.com, but independent of what they're saying I want to call bullshit on the stuff I've seen on CNN and MSNBC the past couple days:

1. The Republicans are 'back' 'standing up' to the Democrats
2. Barack has 'blundered' and the 'honeymoon is over.'

The Republicans have been simply obstructionist, and cable news (which demonstrably has given Republicans more face time than Democrats) has accepted their version of the narrative about the stimulus plan -- even though their narrative is bullshit. Their own plan was so badly constructed it actually raised taxes -- by accident. Their obsession with cutting taxes for rich people to solve all problems is bullshit. Their criticism of 'pork' in the bill is bullshit -- the debatable line items amount to a few billion out of 900 billion, and EVEN THEN for every line item they objected to, there's a good case to be made. Even for family planning, YOU STUPID FUCKING FUCKS.

The problem with appointments -- this happens with every president. Despite the best efforts at vetting. SHUT THE FUCK UP. So Obama nominated a few people who had issues with their taxes? At least he isn't doing what Bush did -- nominate a bunch of IGNORANT SHITHEADS to jobs for which they WERE NOT QUALIFIED, because they satisfied his fairy-tale ideological litmus test.

The honeymoon is over with the press because THE PRESS IS LOOKING FOR AN ANGLE THEY CAN SELL. An angle that satisfies the selfish interests of their corporate owners, by the by.

What you're seeing, if you look past e.g. the smug, idiotic, vomiting of pure falsehood by ludicrous asshats like Peggy Noonan, is a human being doing his level best to do the hardest job on the planet. That's all. If any of you 'journalists' want to do some ACTUAL JOURNALISM there are a lot of real stories you're ignoring, YOU LAZY SHITS.
linkReply

Comments:
(Deleted comment)
[User Picture]From: chaircrusher
2009-02-04 03:00 pm (UTC)
The problem stems from TV journalism not being journalism at all, but entertainment masquerading as journalism. If it was just there to sell soap and didn't affect the course of events, I wouldn't care. Unfortunately most people only know what they see when they flip on CNN or MSNBC when there's nothing else good on, so TV news is way more influential than it has any right to be.

And I think free markets are a great idea -- some day we'll actually give them a go. As it stands now, the entire government system is set up to perpetuate the political and economic power of the richest of the rich. The rich get way more welfare from the government than the poor.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bitterwhiteguy
2009-02-04 04:25 pm (UTC)
Infotainment dominates all media, sadly.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dica
2009-02-05 03:58 pm (UTC)
Depending on where you get your media, yes.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bitterwhiteguy
2009-02-05 04:26 pm (UTC)
Infotainment dominates all mainstream media.


Better?
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: dica
2009-02-05 07:11 pm (UTC)
Well, define mainstream media. Are you referring specifically to "mainstream" American media? And what is that, exactly? Much of the world doesn't receive feeds of CNN, MSNBC, etc. I get Al-Jazeera -- does that count as infotainment or not? Are we talking specifically TV journalism, or are we talking print media, new media, or what?

If you're going to make a blanket statement and act authoritative, you'd better be an authority on the subject -- or at least flesh out your argument. Particularly if you're going to be a condescending ass about it on the internetz.

Thank you, drive through.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: bitterwhiteguy
2009-02-05 07:19 pm (UTC)
There was no attempt at condescension or even authority, simply an opinion. You seem to be inferring some sort of malice that wasn't there, I was clarifying my assertion to better fit your comment.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)
[User Picture]From: chaircrusher
2009-02-05 07:47 pm (UTC)
I think he means mainstream US media.

I think you get a completely different view of the world from watching news from other sources. I think Al-Jazeera would give you a really different view of the Middle East, and would seem wildly anti-Israeli to the average American, but probably would give you a much more accurate view of the pan-Arab world than anything on US cable news. You do have to consider the source, and confront your own prejudices with any news outlet.

I don't even mind so much the US cable networks trying to make the news entertaining. What I do mind is that they stay 'balanced' by having people with wildly different political stances on, and let them say whatever they will without any sort of critique or fact checking. There's a lot of things sincere people can debate, but lying or making shit up shouldn't go unchallenged.

If you have digital cable in the US, watching BBC America newscasts are interesting because the British reporters cover the US outside in. Whatever ax they have to grind, it's not that of corporate overlords, and they seem really earnest and curious, as opposed to US cable people, who seem lazy and inane. I'd watch it more but for some reason BBC America shows more commercials per hour than even Lifetime.
(Reply) (Parent) (Thread)