I'd like to think this means something. Not by itself of course, but after the recent incident on Joe Scarborough's MSNBC morning show where a reporter refused to read a story about Paris Hilton and even attempted to set the copy afire, could we be witnessing the long-awaited revolution that will not be televised? After years of news sliding from "the fourth estate" to "hey, we only give the public what it wants" is the pendulum about to swing back, perhaps made to do so by force?It could happen, and here's why - what would you rather watch, another story about John Edward's hair or a violent, colorful argument about that story? The argument! It's a sure-fire ratings grabber, PLUS the news people can feel better about themselves filling the air time with it. You can say it's onanism, reporters reporting about reporting, but so what? Isn't it still better than a straight Britney Spears piece?
It's a ridulous path to the return of responsible journalism but at least it's a path. Next step - firing all sexy anchor people. Don't worry, they'll find work somewhere.
Which dovetails nicely into what I said about Ann Coulter: She's considered a journalist. She calls people vile names, thus becoming news, which gets her on more cable news shows, where she can say more vile crap. A circle of life thing, a 24-hour news cycle circle jerk.
ReplyDeleteFrankly I'm still a little amazed cable news guys are even capable of ruminating about mindless dreck like Paris or Britney for a full hour at a time. I assume an off-camera executive is, National Lampoon style, holding a gun to the head of the anchor's dog.
This on-camera revolt may have two causes-- one good for everyone, one bad for you. The hopeful reason is that journalists are finally getting sick of wasting their careers covering trivial, silly topics that best belong in a supermarket tab. The other reason might be the producers are just following the general level of unprofessional, vitriolic, screeching discourse widely displayed in the blogosphere. So all of this might just be your fault.
--Skot
You g*ddam bastard! How DARE you accuse me of being vitriolic and screechy! You and everybody like you is ruining teh country!
ReplyDeleteWell, maybe we are ruining journalism, the same way you ruin a beat-up Yugo by painting it an upleasant shade of green. Either way though, it's already a Yugo.
Of course, frankly, I doubt there's anything CLOSE to revolution happening. Whole thing is wishful thinking on my part. This is a temporary visit to the petting zoo, a rest stop on the road to ruin.
Both you and that other guy who reads this have decidedly fatalistic takes on professional journalism. Newspapers are birdcage liner: TV news is headed straight to hell.
ReplyDeleteIs this a wide-spread opinion of the MSM in the blogosphere? If so, is it arrived at through observation or professional jealousy?
It's not so much jealousy, Skot..
ReplyDeleteAs much as it is an increasing lack of relevance from the MSM.
I find that when I turn on the evening news, or read the paper, it's "old" news at that point. Between reading stuff online (from both the Right and Left sites), and listening to the radio as I *ahem* work, I find that I am pretty much up to date.
Take the recent terrorism activity in the UK. By the time you read the paper this morning, the internet (with all of it's glorious tubes and such) have already had multiple updates on where things stand. By the time the papers get ahold of the "new" info for tomorrows issue, the 'Net will have even more information.
I liken the papers to the buggy whip industry a few years after the automobile first began rolling out.
The only reason Iread the local paper now is for the local info on what is going on where..
That being said, I sure wouldn't mind Katie Couric-style $$ for cranking out random crap on my blog.
From your mouth to Rupert Murdoch's ears, WAMK.
ReplyDelete