Sullivan sums up a lot of my thinking on why mainstream journalism is dying:

“Mainstream-media political journalism is in danger of becoming increasingly irrelevant, but not because of the Internet, or even Comedy Central. The threat comes from inside. It comes from journalists being afraid to do what journalists were put on this green earth to do…

Calling bullshit, of course, used to be central to journalism as well as to comedy. And we happen to be in a period in our history in which the substance in question is running particularly deep. Calling bullshit has never been more vital to our democracy. It also resonates with readers and viewers a lot more than passionless stenography I’m not sure why calling bullshit has gone out of vogue in so many newsrooms — why, in fact, it’s so often consciously avoided.

The key thing that angers me about the mainstream media, especially in the political arena, is their endemic inability to seriously challenge leaders to substantiate their claims (i.e. “call bullshit”). The norm for most media (with some notable exceptions) is to simply act as scrivener to the elites in this country. You’ll find this on CNBC with the business elites and on CNN with the political elites. My view is that the reason for the explosion in readership of blogs and other so-called “new media” is that there are more people in that space willing to call bullshit on a regular basis and, not only that, substantiate their assertions with links to evidence to back themselves up.

The problem I see with taking this trend to its logical conclusion is that we run the risk of throwing the baby out with the bathwater. If people get so fed up with the hackery present in, say, the Washington Post, we may ultimately inhibit their ability to do the excellent international field reporting on which so many bloggers rely.

I don’t know how this is ultimately going to play out. I’d like to think that the current climate of justified revulsion at the sins of the mainstream media leads them to someday reform their wicked ways. Unfortunately, their ongoing trend toward mindless infotainment seems to be pretty profitable for the outlets that master the craft (see, e.g., Fox News, CNN, etc.). As a result, I’m not that confident that things will ever get better.

Metavirus filed this under: , ,  
  1. Schu says:

    When large outside international companies own the media they stifle and true investigative reporting. When Tommie, over at AOL’s Political machine wrote an article blasting a Playboy Magazine web writer for his topic and vulgarity, he was fired. It seems that Time-Warner had a big contract with Playboy’s cable vision and might get upset. These are the pressures brought against any reporter today. Hopefully the answer will be in the independent blogs, if they are not bought out in turn.

    • Metavirus says:

      absolutely right. there was a HUGE brouhaha at Time when Warner was bidding for it. their chief concern was that their journalistic standards and independence were going to go out the door once they got hyper-profit-hungry masters at the helm. and many years later, ta-da!!

  2. PChun says:

    I think there is clearly widespead dissatisfaction with infotainment newz and there is huge developing vocal market (blogs, etc.) for tough fact based well researched news, which it should be anyway. The more kindling is tossed onto the fires of Limbaugh/Hannity schlock, and more bland and cowardly the current MSM remains, the greater the marketshare/profit for some brilliant business folks to snag this growing disenfranchised group, and from both a business AND journalistic integrity standpoint, kick off a competing MSM enterprise (like Ted Turner/CNN; or Internet innovators) that becomes our FACT HUB, our Sgt. Joe Friday, "Just the facts, Ma'am. Just the facts." And not the boring model of PBS Lehrer. Anybody have deep pockets, connections, and want to jump in?? Time's ripe.

  3. vjack says:

    At some point, it seems as if the function of news as informing the people and strengthening the democracy was subsumed to making money. The media networks now argue that they are just giving the people what they want. Sadly, there is some truth to that.

    • Metavirus says:

      "The media networks now argue that they are just giving the people what they want. Sadly, there is some truth to that. "

      Exactly right. In the olden days, there was an ethical wall between journalism and entertainment. Now that that has fallen, they can simply claim that they're giving the people what they want. It reminds me of the fat post-Earthlings in the movie Wall-E

  4. PChun says:

    Sure, but there are millions of us that crave rigorous factual investigative reporting (even the movies that depict this are intriguing to the masses), and the growing numbers and vast reality of blogs, can leave this issue unaddressed for only so long. If large numbers of people have been wanting orange tennis shoes, then that's what the market typically supplies; but if growing numbers want, even start demanding, purple boots, then the market will respond, even if it's from a business first, integrity second motivation. I wish it were the reverse, but my optimystic crystal ball sees purple boots on the horizon, whatever the order, which makes both business and integrity sense. I just wonder how long…bets?

  5. Kevin says:

    To borrow a quote from NOFX about the music industry, that applies here:

    "The dinosaurs will slowly die
    And I do believe no one will cry
    I'm just fucking glad I'm gonna be
    There to watch the fall"

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

*

You may use these HTML tags and attributes: <a href="" title=""> <abbr title=""> <acronym title=""> <b> <blockquote cite=""> <cite> <code> <del datetime=""> <em> <i> <q cite=""> <strike> <strong>

 

Authors