Posted on 11/25/2004 7:52:43 AM PST by HighWheeler
Hoo-boy. It's a hot time in the old blogtown.
The pajamahadeen are firing their virtual bullets into the cyber-air in celebration of CBS anchor Dan Rather's announcement on Tuesday that he was retiring as the top talking face of the network after 24 years.
"This has been a simply outstanding month," crowed a poster on http://www.freerepublic.com. "Bush won, Arafat died, we're kicking ass in Fallujah, and now this!"
Typically, the above-quoted "Freeper" didn't get that Rather may be down, but he certainly isn't out. When he steps down as front man for The CBS Evening News on March 9, he will stay on as correspondent for the still much-watched 60 Minutes, as well as perform other assignments.
So it was a bit premature to be celebrating the defeat of the veteran journalist who has inspired anti-liberal websites such as http://www.RatherBiased.com and http://www.BoycottCBS.com, not to mention Doonesbury's ridiculous foreign correspondent Roland Hedley Jr., an R.E.M. hit and "Rather-gate."
As comic Jon Stewart recently pointed out, last September's 60 Minutes II fiasco, which had Rather questioning President George W. Bush's National Guard service with documents that could not be authenticated, was the only scandal of the election campaign to have merited a "-gate."
Which brings us to those pajamahadeen, the online brigades who claim credit for bringing those documents into question — and forcing Rather to apologize for his reporting.
The right-wing bloggers proudly dubbed themselves that — a play on muhajadeen, as in Muslim guerrilla fighters — when former CBS exec Jonathan Klein, in the wake of the scandal, complained to Fox News that "bloggers have no checks and balances.
"You couldn't have a starker contrast between the multiple layers of checks and balances (on network news) and a guy sitting in his living room in his pajamas writing."
By checks and balances, Klein meant the rigours of professional journalism — and not the opinionating of the blogosphere.
Ironically, bloggers mostly feed off the work of professional journalists who do the legwork. But, like parasites too stupid to realize they are killing off their hosts, the pajamahadeen don't get it every time they dig more dirt for our mass grave.
"Network news is dying and good riddence (sic)!" jubilated one of them yesterday.
It's true that journalism's checks and balances have been known to fail. When they do, news organizations crash and burn in spectacular fashion. But, much like the thousands of airplanes that land safely every day and don't make the news, major disasters are few and far between.
Still, the credibility of the corporate media continues to plummet.
In March, the Washington-based Project for Excellence in Journalism published The State of the News Media 2004, which documents an increase in superficiality and sensationalism, the declining reach of newspapers and network newscasts, cutbacks in newsroom resources and, most significantly, rising public distrust and disdain for our reportage.
Then, in June, the Canadian Media Research Consortium, a national project led by three University-based organizations to promote research on the media, (http://www.cmrcccrm.ca) came out with its Report Card On Canadian News Media. While it showed that Canadians are significantly more positive about our news sources than Americans are, citizens here believe that "powerful people or organizations" have too much influence on the media agenda.
One thing is clear from both studies: The shift from mainstream media to alternate sources such as the ethnic press, cable networks and the Internet, are threatening the future of the solid, stolid mainstream journalism.
And we don't know how to deal with it. Recently, for example, the news came from the U.K. that staid old papers are going tabloid, while the Washington Post will lighten up — all to attract elusive younger readers.
As for the newscasts of the type that Rather hosts, well, one look at the commercials for arthritis pills will tell you plenty about their demographics.
Paradoxically, young people are crowding into journalism schools, many of them in search of network TV stardom.
Still, the pajamahadeen are waging war on the mainstream media.
That includes the paper you're reading, even if you're not reading it on paper, since it is the actually selling of this paper which pays for the content you may now be reading gratis.
By the end of today, who knows how many bloggers will have had at this column? Many of them often shoot me down — and some do a pretty good job. (See letitbleed.blogs.com)
But, just like trigger happy celebrants in the Middle East, who have yet to figure out that what goes up must come down, they can't see that, by firing up at us, they will also kill themselves.
This only confirms my previous conclusion that the Toronto Star is unworthy for use as a sanitary napkin.
I'm mad because it's a month too late for me to include a picture of this hermaphrodite in my "scary pictures" collage for Halloween. It would be pretty hard to find one more frightening.
BTTT
Huh. They didn't even have the decency to name the Freeper. Bummer. Sounds like something I wrote.
Ms. Zerbisias,
In your interesting article about the Pajamhedin, I believe you display an error in thought which renders the entire article nugatory.
The error, if I am right, is that you understand us (I count myself among the pajamahedin, though I should more precisely be called bathrobehedin -- I don't wear pajamas) to be attacking the sources of our information. But the problem as I see it is that in the MSM (Mainstream Media) too many reporters not only bring information to public attention but also (As Mr. Jennings in a recent advertisement claimed to do) they try to tell us what it means.
AS you and I both know, editing begins when one decides THIS story, rather than THAT one, is worthy of reporting. That editing is unavoidable. But while the MSM pretend to report, they actually end up seeking to indoctrinate.
When the MSM goes back to reporting, the pajamahedin will happily return to our enjoyably bilious commentary. But when they insult our intelligence and mislead our country's electorate by slanting their reporting, we will do what we morally and legally can to give them as much trouble as they can stomach -- and more.
In related news .... ;) I think you may not understand or appreciate the pleasure we take when our typos and misspellings are pointed out. To us this indicates that we amateurs who do not have the support of proof-readers, fact-checkers, and style books do a better job of getting the news out than you professionals.
For example, you write
Which brings us to those pajamahadeen, the online brigades who claim credit for bringing those documents into question and forcing Rather to apologize for his reporting. [emphasis added]Not only do some of us (not me) CLAIM credit for bringing the Rather-gate forgeries into question, we DESERVE credit. It was unpaid amateurs or volunteers who in a few minutes did what Gungha Dan neglected or refused to do, namely look critically at the documents he adduced as evidence.
By your use of "claim credit" you suggest that the claim is, at least, questionable. No one who knows what happened could suggest that. So we are left with an uncomfortable question: Are you dishonest, merely ignorant, or some third thing?
What ever the answer to that question is, in your attempt to mock and to disparage us, you show why we are necessary and why we will not go away. Somebody has got to care about the truth. If the professionals won't, then we amateurs will set up a howling that will continue to be heard even as far away as the editorial offices of the Toronto Star. We will not only howl. We will hunt, we will pursue, and we will catch your brethren (and sistren) in their dishonesty and we will take their jobs.
One down, uncounted thousands to go.
If these writers were smart they would realize that forums like FR discuss their writings. Free PR and a way to expand their audience IF their ideas can survive scrutiny.
If they are fortunate, people will go from "what an interesting article" to seeking out a specific writers ideas.
Yes I do remember fair witnesses. I am constantly surprised how many Heilein readers there are here.
the Rather/60 Minutes hit piece on Bush was NOT news .. it was recycling of an old rumor .. and should have been known to be a rumor. The "unimpeachable source" was a known Bush-hater. How does that meet ANY standards?
You could try printing the news instead of propaganda pieces and opinions and calling them news.
You could get up out of the chair you're setting in and find some stories instead of waiting for it to come in over the wire from AP or Reuters.
You might even want to trying some good old fashion fair and balanced investigative reporting on both sides of the political spectrum instead of just one.
Doom on ya Presstitute !
ROFLMAO!!!
If all of this is true, how come I'm not the one crying, wailing, complaining, making ready to migrate to New Zealand, scheduling psychiatric therapy, or comitting suicide at Ground Zero?
I just looked down at my feet: Nope, I'm not walking shakily on the edge of a precipice in mortal danger of plummeting into a fiery, lava-filled chasm of doom.
... I've got my faith in the Lord to protect me.
"The 'niche' occupied by the press in the 'ecology' of a free society is the dissemination of news (recent facts relevant to public policy) to the citizenry. When a news organization, reporter or anchor instead propagandizes by substituting opinion for fact and worse outright falsehoods (cf. D. Rather), it becomes 'less fit'. Predators (bloggers) 'cull the herd' making by
removing less fit individuals (brining down D.Rather, for instance) leaving a 'more fit' species (press).
"The MSM should be grateful for us.
"Isn't it marvelous how Darwinism can be used to explain anything if one is just creative enough?"
Way back when, I wanted to be one of those, when I grew up. (*sigh*)
The arrogance of the MSM is astounding.
The black knight from monty python and the holy grail must have been a democrat...
"Looks like he likes to dress up as a woman"
Well, the name is AntiniA, not Antonio..
It is a female name.
http://www.roadsideamerica.com/attract/images/mn/MNFRAfire98_7_1.jpg
Eeeeek always showing off !
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.