Monday, January 01, 2007

Because They Lie And I Hate Them

This is just the usual rant about the traditional news media, and why you should be getting your news online. I am not especially annoyed at sources that quite obviously come from one side of the political spectrum, such as The Nation or Mother Jones. When their covers have something critical of Bush, they are quite consciously giving you one side of the story, and trying to make the case as powerfully as they can, like a prosecuting attorney. But Newsweek still purports to be evenhanded and objective. By artful use of the cover, the story headline, the sub headline, the photos and captions, they can slant the story before you get to word one of the text. "Will Bush Listen?" its recent story about the ISG report, with those three words they have already given you three opinions disguised as fact: Bush generally doesn't listen; the ISG report is the way to proceed in Iraq; and if Bush doesn't do what it says, he isn't listening. It's just tiring.

Update: And there is this lie as well.

This weekend's flaws in the MSM news:
The untrue: NYTimes reporting about abortion in El Salvador
Making up what Saddam said at his execution
The ongoing saga of Jamil Hussein, which should be the big media story of December, but is found only on the internet. (The AP has quoted a fictitious source for 61 news stories in Iraq)

An assessment you won't find from the usual sources - anywhere.

The herd instinct of well-paid professional wordsmiths. I get more originality in my comments section from my forty daily readers.

Stories that were buried, that would not be if they were reversed, about Conyer's guilt, and European opinion about Saddam's execution

And a complete disconnect between what the headline says and the article reports, unless there's a new meaning to the word "outraged."

At least the Washington Post gives Bush some credit, though I can't find this anywhere else.

Kate over at The Clay Friar rightly bemoans what NPR leaves out, in its effort to give you those special human interest stories instead of actual, um, news. That's only the tip of the iceberg, though.


bs king said...

I'm taking bets on how long Newsweek is going to stay in circulation. I was at trivia two weeks ago and there was a question about a cover story. When the answer was read a general discussion ensued about how much Newsweek and Time sucked. This from a room with almost 50 most likely left leaning 20 somethings. The general consensus was that they are a more like a snotty ignorant journalists convention than a real news source at this point. Anyway, the anecdotal evidence I have from my peers would lead me to believe online news sources are quite soon going to be the only relevant ones.

Assistant Village Idiot said...

Journalists convention. I think you're on to something. I don't think they're necessarily so snotty and ignorant as on the verge of being has-beens. Sort of the Professional Journalists Association - Senior Tour, like they have in golf. Old alums at Homecoming - some of them still useful, some with famous names, but starting to fade or get long in the tooth. Great thought - thanks.

Unknown said...

Thanks for the sites, mon. You're Ben's dad, eh? You did a good job.