http://nwbloggers.com/2007/01/04/the-hubris-of-the-main-stream-media-part-1/ Wed, 07 Jan 2009 11:29:55 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.7 hourly 1 http://nwbloggers.com/2007/01/04/the-hubris-of-the-main-stream-media-part-1/comment-page-1/#comment-7229 Playin' Possum Thu, 04 Jan 2007 16:53:33 +0000 http://nwbloggers.com/2007/01/04/the-hubris-of-the-main-stream-media-part-1/#comment-7229 OH COME ON... It's not that slow of a news day...   This WSJ piece and this paroter from the Trib are pure bloviation, but frankly so is your assertion "I wonder if Mr. Seago has forgotten the NY Times problems from Jayson Blair through the current intentional misreporting of infanticide of a healthy (post-natal) baby as an abortion; or the AP's issues with fauxtography and the probably-doesn't-exist Iraqi Police Source used in over 40 articles. While it was the Blogs who exposed Rathergate, the scandals at Air America, and follow up on leads that don't fit the MSM agenda."   Rathergate was a red-herring; issues with a document were used by partisans to distract from the overwhelmingly likely truth that the shrub shirked his duties. The swift boat nonsense was even worse: It barely skirted actionable slander which may yet land in court. As for the other stories you cite, I have read damn good rebuttals to all these right-wing claims and many others, posted on leftie blogs, which I hope you remember dwarf the righties... I considered writing on the subject of these rebuttals, but since I write here it's pointless: Nobody would even read them.   Returning to the two editors' wordy tomes... I posit they are seeking a complicated, even profound explanation in a situation that calls for the application of a very rusty, very dull iteration of Occam's razor: It's the dilution, and the money.... Stupid...   Pre-internet, I read three or four papers a week purchased at newsstands outside the corner store... I also read a lot of books, a habit I've gotten mostly away from because 1) the internet is easy and 2) the internet is free. I don't read the Journal or the New Republic - two examples of several - even though I might enjoy them, because they charge for their pages, and with all the free stuff available, why bother? It's silly to believe they will provide anything so earth-shattering as to be worth subscribing, especially when somebody else will certainly steal their leads tomorrow and publish them... For free...   So I have to conclude this is a great whiny tempest in a teacup. I don't need the MSM editors to protect "the truth;" I have a fine-tuned bullshit meter for that. And I doubt anyone else is more honest anyway - in fact, I think total objective honesty is beyond the monkey man's capacity. In any event, blogs aren't going to "do in" the MSM - they will simply force adaptations, and really good writers will certainly find a way to make their skills pay.   Caveat Emptor. OH COME ON… It’s not that slow of a news day…
 
This WSJ piece and this paroter from the Trib are pure bloviation, but frankly so is your assertion "I wonder if Mr. Seago has forgotten the NY Times problems from Jayson Blair through the current intentional misreporting of infanticide of a healthy (post-natal) baby as an abortion; or the AP’s issues with fauxtography and the probably-doesn’t-exist Iraqi Police Source used in over 40 articles.
While it was the Blogs who exposed Rathergate, the scandals at Air America, and follow up on leads that don’t fit the MSM agenda."
 
Rathergate was a red-herring; issues with a document were used by partisans to distract from the overwhelmingly likely truth that the shrub shirked his duties. The swift boat nonsense was even worse: It barely skirted actionable slander which may yet land in court. As for the other stories you cite, I have read damn good rebuttals to all these right-wing claims and many others, posted on leftie blogs, which I hope you remember dwarf the righties… I considered writing on the subject of these rebuttals, but since I write here it’s pointless: Nobody would even read them.
 
Returning to the two editors’ wordy tomes… I posit they are seeking a complicated, even profound explanation in a situation that calls for the application of a very rusty, very dull iteration of Occam’s razor: It’s the dilution, and the money…. Stupid…
 
Pre-internet, I read three or four papers a week purchased at newsstands outside the corner store… I also read a lot of books, a habit I’ve gotten mostly away from because 1) the internet is easy and 2) the internet is free. I don’t read the Journal or the New Republic - two examples of several - even though I might enjoy them, because they charge for their pages, and with all the free stuff available, why bother? It’s silly to believe they will provide anything so earth-shattering as to be worth subscribing, especially when somebody else will certainly steal their leads tomorrow and publish them… For free…
 
So I have to conclude this is a great whiny tempest in a teacup. I don’t need the MSM editors to protect "the truth;" I have a fine-tuned bullshit meter for that. And I doubt anyone else is more honest anyway - in fact, I think total objective honesty is beyond the monkey man’s capacity. In any event, blogs aren’t going to "do in" the MSM - they will simply force adaptations, and really good writers will certainly find a way to make their skills pay.
 
Caveat Emptor.

]]>