An Internet hub for moderates, centrists, and independents, with domestic and international news, analysis, original reporting, and popular features from the left, center, and right

The Great Mainstream Media Implosion

economist_newspapers.0.jpg

As someone who bled printers ink at newspapers for 35 years and has a second career as a blogger, the big message in former White House press secretary Scott McClellan’s blockbuster of a book is not that George Bush is a resume without a man, that there was an orchestrated effort to lie to a public traumatized by the 9/11 attacks in the run-up to the Iraq war, or that Karl Rove makes Machiavelli look like a Boy Scout. It is that the mainstream news media’s march toward irrelevance is well deserved.

This is a judgment that stems in large part from the news media’s abrogation in covering all three of the biggest stories of the young millennium:

George Bush’s historic reign of error, including his extralegal power grabs and embrace of the use of torture.

That the 9/11 terror attacks might have been prevented had the U.S. intelligence community not contentedly slept.

That the Iraq war is responsible for everything from the continuing growth of the Islamic jihad to the explosion of oil prices.

Nobody likes being called names and the thin-skinned Washington press corps is no exception. That is why so many reporters and commentators have taken umbrage at McClellan’s view that the news media was so credulous and so bought that it gobbled up the White House’s pre-war propaganda like so many canapes at a Rose Garden reception.

(This kind of moots the right-wing myth of the “liberal” media, eh? And would Bush have skated to a second term if Mr. Bill Keller of The New York Times and other powerful news execs done their jobs?)

Yes, McClellan has some issues of his own, including why he didn’t mind being lied to – and gave the finger to the few reporters who were skeptical – until it was time to cash in on a book.

Yes, the post-9/11 world was frighteningly unfamiliar territory, but that did not abrogate the news media’s responsibility to ask tough questions about why we were so utterly unprepared for an attack on the homeland.

Yes, there have been exceptions to the news media’s wretched performance, but none of the leading print and broadcast outlets have covered themselves in glory covering these three major stories.

Yes, the alternatives to the mainstream media — notably blogs – have their own issues, including their unedited nature and the proclivity to play loose and fast with the facts.

* * * * *

The seeds for the news media’s march toward irrelevance were sewn well before George Bush was anointed the Republican presidential nominee in 2000, and are the result of two perversely complementary trends . . .

Please click here to read more at Kiko’s House and here for some musings on the blogosphere.

  • RememberNovember
    After reading the first 30 pages of So Wrong for So Long, it is apparent that the media engaged in pack-journalism and cheerleading because it was their only option- toe the White House Lyin', or suffer a career collapse by speaking out and asking questions that would seem unpopular- it has become MSM Survivor. Check your integrity at the door.

    Perhaps bloggers need to be vetted somehow-an internet Chicago handbook if you will and maybe they need to get filtered through some kind of snopes-like/fact-check data base- or they get filed under Op/Ed sites and don't get to hide behind front groups/anonymity.
    Just an idea.
  • Great post.

    It might be time for me to reread Manufacturing Consent.
  • runasim
    Great post, and the truth does hurt.

    The excuses news personalities are using for not doing their job are pathetic.
    'It was the time we were in" is my favorite. Psst. It's always the times, and it's the meida's job to find out what defines and steers the times.

    The role of blogs as replacement news is frightning, because real news and real facts are so inertwined with opinion. In debates, I see more and more links to blogs as a way of saying 'that proves it'. . It's opinion based on oponion, but taken to be the ultimate truth.

    It all gets back to money. How to finance the kind of investigative reporting and professional journalism that is desperately needeed?
  • Slamfu
    Why is that frightening? Why does the transition away from paper media for news have to mean the death of investigative reporting? Why can't an online news source be valid and hold true to journalistic practices?

    Also, that liberal media bias is such a pile of crap. Conservatives believe that for two reasons.

    IFirst the world is a complicated place and conservatives like it simple and preferably already in agreement with what they know to be true. Report things as they actually are, and conservatives can not help but link this disconnect with their view of things with a liberal bias confusing the issues.

    Second, by claiming loudly and often that all non-FOX news sources are liberal, you create a "working the ref" scenario, like they do in sports. By constantly accusing the arbiters of a situation of preferential dealings, you create a psychological push the other way future calls. Its pure BS.
  • runasim
    Slamfu,
    It's about the money.
    Without subscriptions, looss of income.
    Without money, not much professional journalism.

    I think the NYT tried on-line subscription fees, and it failed.
  • kritt11
    Does at least some of the media's poor performance stem from increased corporate ownership and therefore decreased independence in their traditional watchdog role? It seems like the MSM has become increasingly wary of offending Washington Bigwigs or losing sponsors if they report anything that is even slightly controversial.

    That is one reason I turned to the internet for news.
blog comments powered by Disqus
© 2005-2009 The Moderate Voice | Site design by Elegant Themes | Site customization, hosting, and security by Enxit Group, LLC