New York Times Timed Out...You Decide What's True
"A great many people think they are thinking when they are really rearranging their prejudices."--Edward R Murrow
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." --Edward R Murrow
***
If you are concerned with the railroad job the MSM and many members of our congress have been giving to our President and our courageous troops during this time of war, as I am, stop buying the dang paper and write to your representatives to give them your opinion about what they're doing.
You can be strong and yet respectful. I concur with Tammy Bruce who said just because it's always been there (the New York Times) doesn't mean that it's right or that we have to pay attention to what it's saying.
We are fortunate to have responsible, educated and informed bloggers asking questions that the MSM is not asking itself about its own practices. Since self-policing the media isn't working very well, it's become our responsibility (as citizens) to put our money where our mouths are. Find out if we think their actions are seditious or traitorous, and if we do, complain to their advertisers. And don't buy the paper. It's not brain surgery.
Things are cyclical (probably because we have such short memories and are, therefore, doomed to repeating our mistakes)--unions were necessary in their time, but they became as abusive as the businesses they were protecting against. The MSM likes to say that it needs to print the truth. The reality of it is that the MSM should be reporting FACTS, and let others decide for themselves where the truth lies. Instead, they've been spelling their truth out for you with their biases built right in. Then they repeat it daily until you become brainwashed into believing their reports--biases and all--to be true.
We definitely need some other sources to compare theirs with: radio talk shows, bloggers, personal investigation, etc, help us figure out why a story is being reported and what ax is being ground in the process.... And whether the public good is being jeopardized by the editors and/or owners of the publication. Never let them get away with making the lame claim that they are "whistle blowers" in a climate of right wing tyranny and that they are simply looking out for you by feeding you this garbage. That kind of rhetoric is not the way facts are validated. "Public Trust" is unwarranted for a MSM that deliberately tries to undermine its own country and its government through so-called "investigative" "timed-release" reporting.
I copied the following from Pajamas Media today Jan 2, 2006. Go there yourself for more info on other issues of the day. They'll tell you what the MSM will not.
Empowering everybody and scaring the New York Times
Compiled by Pajamas Media staff in Barcelona
"More whining about blogs from the New York Times," writes Ace of Spades HQ regarding an article in the Gray Lady today dealing with how the Internet allows the "little guy" and even corporations to answer back to the news media on the flaws they perceive in their reporting; the news media "monopoly on the 'contextualization' of information is threatened, and they're pretty annoyed about that," Ace of Spades notes.
I Married Isis: "For hundreds of years most people who have been the subject of negative press have been unable to fight back, overwhelmed with the task of challenging a newspaper which reaches thousands of people daily and has a sizable war chest. Since Roman times, it has been virtually impossible for the average man to change a negative opinion of him or his work when it has been influenced by the media. I mean look at what they did to Pee-Wee Herman. But that is changing now, thanks to the power of the internet and the booming popularity of the blog. As soldiers in Iraq blog from the frontlines and various industry insiders tell-all to the anonymous millions who visit their sites, the average victim is empowering himself."
GlobeLens: "The article goes on to tell exactly how bloggers are doing that, by publishing their side of the story and by posting or linking to source information (transcripts, email correspondence, etc.), allowing their readers to make up their own minds about a political move or an interview, without having to listen to a reporter's unconscious (or conscious) bias."
Na Han: "It seems one way that blogs will grow is, as the article suggests, a way to spin your story. Is that a good thing? Only time will tell."
Media Metamorphosis: "It's a good piece, but also a bit of a cautionary tale for PR people. Most of my clients are smaller companies that fight for ink; very different than a major player like Google that is in a much better position to dictate its terms. [...] We in PR spend a lot of time working to court favor with reporters so they'll take our clients seriously. If a client lashes out at that reporter you can bet the next time a relevant story comes up, it's going to be much more difficult to earn a mention. I'm sure we all have stories of clients calling us, angry, and wanting to find out "what we can do" about a particular reporter or story. The trick is to use this new weapon wisely and not to have a quick trigger finger."
Firedoglake: "The Kathleen Parkers of the world are irate because someone with no official journalistic imprimatur should be challenging them in the domain of news reporting, and she and her ilk are always shrieking about how bloggers have no editors and are basically just an unwashed horde who would be nothing without the big news bureaus to feed them raw data. Without going into all the keen misunderstandings in the realm of Kathleen Parker, let's just say she represents the mindset of many who don't comprehend what bloggers do or what the allure of a blog is to its readers."
The Blogging of the President: "The blurring of producers, material and consumers is indeed one of the key points of the internet."
Have a Nacaf Summer: "it is difficult and confusing to suddenly have a public conversation about news when so much of what journalists take for granted as routine story formation is seen as a quasi alchemical process by much of the public. We have sold the myth of objectivity for so long that it has become common wisdom: whereas once upon a time this provided a protective shield, it is now being used as a weapon against us." (Emphasis mine. H&A)
***
Sources:
www.pajamasmedia.com January 2, 2006
http://www.Tammy Bruce.com
New York Times article, Katharine Q Seelye, Jan 2 2006...
The url is below, but you'll probably have to pay to read it.
If you're a member, go at it. Cut and paste if necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/business/media/02source.htmlex
=1293858000&en=
d29184756032beac&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss"
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Edward_R._Murrow/
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/murrowedwar/murrowedwar.htm
"Just because your voice reaches halfway around the world doesn't mean you are wiser than when it reached only to the end of the bar." --Edward R Murrow
***
If you are concerned with the railroad job the MSM and many members of our congress have been giving to our President and our courageous troops during this time of war, as I am, stop buying the dang paper and write to your representatives to give them your opinion about what they're doing.
You can be strong and yet respectful. I concur with Tammy Bruce who said just because it's always been there (the New York Times) doesn't mean that it's right or that we have to pay attention to what it's saying.
We are fortunate to have responsible, educated and informed bloggers asking questions that the MSM is not asking itself about its own practices. Since self-policing the media isn't working very well, it's become our responsibility (as citizens) to put our money where our mouths are. Find out if we think their actions are seditious or traitorous, and if we do, complain to their advertisers. And don't buy the paper. It's not brain surgery.
Things are cyclical (probably because we have such short memories and are, therefore, doomed to repeating our mistakes)--unions were necessary in their time, but they became as abusive as the businesses they were protecting against. The MSM likes to say that it needs to print the truth. The reality of it is that the MSM should be reporting FACTS, and let others decide for themselves where the truth lies. Instead, they've been spelling their truth out for you with their biases built right in. Then they repeat it daily until you become brainwashed into believing their reports--biases and all--to be true.
We definitely need some other sources to compare theirs with: radio talk shows, bloggers, personal investigation, etc, help us figure out why a story is being reported and what ax is being ground in the process.... And whether the public good is being jeopardized by the editors and/or owners of the publication. Never let them get away with making the lame claim that they are "whistle blowers" in a climate of right wing tyranny and that they are simply looking out for you by feeding you this garbage. That kind of rhetoric is not the way facts are validated. "Public Trust" is unwarranted for a MSM that deliberately tries to undermine its own country and its government through so-called "investigative" "timed-release" reporting.
I copied the following from Pajamas Media today Jan 2, 2006. Go there yourself for more info on other issues of the day. They'll tell you what the MSM will not.
Empowering everybody and scaring the New York Times
Compiled by Pajamas Media staff in Barcelona
"More whining about blogs from the New York Times," writes Ace of Spades HQ regarding an article in the Gray Lady today dealing with how the Internet allows the "little guy" and even corporations to answer back to the news media on the flaws they perceive in their reporting; the news media "monopoly on the 'contextualization' of information is threatened, and they're pretty annoyed about that," Ace of Spades notes.
I Married Isis: "For hundreds of years most people who have been the subject of negative press have been unable to fight back, overwhelmed with the task of challenging a newspaper which reaches thousands of people daily and has a sizable war chest. Since Roman times, it has been virtually impossible for the average man to change a negative opinion of him or his work when it has been influenced by the media. I mean look at what they did to Pee-Wee Herman. But that is changing now, thanks to the power of the internet and the booming popularity of the blog. As soldiers in Iraq blog from the frontlines and various industry insiders tell-all to the anonymous millions who visit their sites, the average victim is empowering himself."
GlobeLens: "The article goes on to tell exactly how bloggers are doing that, by publishing their side of the story and by posting or linking to source information (transcripts, email correspondence, etc.), allowing their readers to make up their own minds about a political move or an interview, without having to listen to a reporter's unconscious (or conscious) bias."
Na Han: "It seems one way that blogs will grow is, as the article suggests, a way to spin your story. Is that a good thing? Only time will tell."
Media Metamorphosis: "It's a good piece, but also a bit of a cautionary tale for PR people. Most of my clients are smaller companies that fight for ink; very different than a major player like Google that is in a much better position to dictate its terms. [...] We in PR spend a lot of time working to court favor with reporters so they'll take our clients seriously. If a client lashes out at that reporter you can bet the next time a relevant story comes up, it's going to be much more difficult to earn a mention. I'm sure we all have stories of clients calling us, angry, and wanting to find out "what we can do" about a particular reporter or story. The trick is to use this new weapon wisely and not to have a quick trigger finger."
Firedoglake: "The Kathleen Parkers of the world are irate because someone with no official journalistic imprimatur should be challenging them in the domain of news reporting, and she and her ilk are always shrieking about how bloggers have no editors and are basically just an unwashed horde who would be nothing without the big news bureaus to feed them raw data. Without going into all the keen misunderstandings in the realm of Kathleen Parker, let's just say she represents the mindset of many who don't comprehend what bloggers do or what the allure of a blog is to its readers."
The Blogging of the President: "The blurring of producers, material and consumers is indeed one of the key points of the internet."
Have a Nacaf Summer: "it is difficult and confusing to suddenly have a public conversation about news when so much of what journalists take for granted as routine story formation is seen as a quasi alchemical process by much of the public. We have sold the myth of objectivity for so long that it has become common wisdom: whereas once upon a time this provided a protective shield, it is now being used as a weapon against us." (Emphasis mine. H&A)
***
Sources:
www.pajamasmedia.com January 2, 2006
http://www.Tammy Bruce.com
New York Times article, Katharine Q Seelye, Jan 2 2006...
The url is below, but you'll probably have to pay to read it.
If you're a member, go at it. Cut and paste if necessary.
http://www.nytimes.com/2006/01/02/business/media/02source.htmlex
=1293858000&en=
d29184756032beac&ei=5090&partner=rssuserland&emc=rss"
http://www.quotationspage.com/quotes/Edward_R._Murrow/
http://www.museum.tv/archives/etv/M/htmlM/murrowedwar/murrowedwar.htm
posted by Hairpinandarrow_blog at
10:59 AM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home