Thank you JESUS! Next the evil ACLU!!!
They were not after the truth, and it wasn't a "sloppy" story, it was a criminal story!
They will be sorely missed.
my main exposure to the msm now is via articles posted on FR.
And ever since, they have tried to shoehorn just about all events into one of those three worldviews: the civil rights movement, Vietnam and Watergate. But those dogs don't hunt any longer.
wow! - a brutally honest piece about the MSN from someone within the MSN? Kudos to Howard Fineman
Could any of these have been accomplished without a bias? The idea that the media could "accomplish" anything goes against what I feel the duty of journalism is. Namely just to report.
At the height of its unchallenged, unbridled power, the AMMP (the American Mainstream Media Party) helped validate propped up the civil rights movement, destroyed support and morale in an effort to end a war and allowed two pathetic reporters to lead an effort to oust a media perceived power-mad president whom they despised and slandered at every opportunity and have attempted to duplicate with every Republican President since.. But all that is ancient history.
A few corrections were necessary.
insert unnecessary DODGEBAL reply here: "F -in A, Cotton, F-in A..."
Fineman misses the point, and deliberately so, since he knows the truth. They did choose sides, but pretended to be unbiased and objective. They became the mouthpiece for the Democratic Party, although they still won't admit it. Not that admitting anything will help their ratings, since we've known the truth for decades, but it will be good for their evil left wing souls. They can come to terms with their demise and be at peace.
The underlying premise of Fineman's article is that the MSM is objective -- and that the space for objective press is shrinking. I don't think anyone at the FR would agree with his assertion that the MSM is objective.
. . . as opposed to the MsM, which reinforces the sectarian views of - the MsM. Specifically, the view that nothing actually matters except PR.Yes, I know: A purely objective viewpoint does not exist in the cosmos or in politics.
What's with the "purely?" Claiming to be objective is claiming to be wise, and claiming to be wise is arrogant, as only a journalist writing in his own paper or on his own radio station can be.Yes, I know: Today's media foodfights are mild compared with the viciousness of pamphleteers and partisan newspapers of old, from colonial times forward. Yes, I know: The notion of a neutral "mainstream" national media gained a dominant following only in World War II and in its aftermath, when what turned out to be a temporary moderate consensus came to govern the country.
When your opposition is politically crippled, you think you are moderate because nobody points out limitations in your thinking.Still, the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press was, to me at least, worth holding onto. Now it's pretty much dead, at least as the public sees things.
Story selection - what's the lead, and what's on page A13, and what's not even in the paper - is in the eye of the beholder. And there's nothing "neutral" about those decisions. That makes a mockery of "the notion of a neutral, non-partisan mainstream press."
Maybe they could restore their credibility by auditioning for American Idol.
The MSM "creates" the news it wants to report, or twists the facts of what is said or done by the Administration. So, why should President Bush give these morons more ammunition? That is what is truly eating at the MSM. Because Bush doesn't give them additional data on which to create more lies, with the availability of the internet, they know the lies they do create are soon obliterated.
I will miss the old days when I was spoon fed my news from one or two snobbish arrogant elitists that knew what was good for me.
It was easier in the old days when us ignorant Americans didn't know how to think for ourselves. Maybe we should still consider looking to Hollywood and all the Michael Moores to tell us what to think. Yah think?(sarcasm off)
There is a certain sadness in this. America has always stood above the fray of other countries' media by having a media that was, at least in perception, unbiased. In a generation or so is all media in the U.S. going to be like one big Crossfire shouting match? Part of me hopes a new MSM rises in the place of the old one that corrects past defects.
"We have a president who feels it's almost a point of honor not to hold more press conferences"
We watched Clinton's press conferences become essentially cheerleading sessions with miscreants taken personally to the woodshed by the President, while GWB's press conferences are hostile confrontations packed with leading questions and cynical presumptions. Good riddance.
index
In this situation, the last thing the AMMP needed was to aim wildly at the president — and not only miss, but be seen as having a political motivation in attacking in the first place. Were Dan Rather and Mary Mapes after the truth or victory when they broadcast their egregiously sloppy story about Bush's National Guard Service? The moment it made air it began to fall apart, and eventually was shredded by factions within the AMMP itself, conservative national outlets and by the new opposition party that is emerging: The Blogger Nation. It's hard to know now who, if anyone, in the "media" has any credibility.