I sick of unfair treatment of Palin

[Levin]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

LOL. You've been watching too much Mr Smith Goes to Washington.

There are liberal media outlets and conservative media outlets. The reason you are being overwhelmed with the negative Palin media is because the conservative Palin media doesnt have much to write about.

Go listen to Rush Limbaugh if you want to get your Palin groove back. I am sure he will tell you everything you want to hear.

This brings up an interesting question on the definition of the media. I don't consider Rush Limbaugh a part of the media. He's not a journalist; he's not a reporter; he's self-admittedly an entertainer. I don't listen to him b/c he doesn't entertain me, and he most definitely doesn't inform me: he irritates me. He manipulates his listeners, as the other blowhards do. They're no better than loud-mouthed and hyper evangelical preachers who believe the louder they shout and sweat and scream the more likely it is their parishoners will feel the spirit.

The media's job is to inform the public about matters of public concern. They aren't to entertain or to editorialize. Their job is to objectively inform. Newspapers and network news did this much better at one point in time, in a much less biased (though not perfect) manner.

My model would be how the WSJ reports on financial news (not their editorial page). Every day it's instructional and educational -- it leaves me well-informed and unslimed, unspinned, and unmanipulated.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

This brings up an interesting question on the definition of the media. I don't consider Rush Limbaugh a part of the media. He's not a journalist; he's not a reporter; he's self-admittedly an entertainer. I don't listen to him b/c he doesn't entertain me, and he most definitely doesn't inform me: he irritates me. He manipulates his listeners, as the other blowhards do. They're no better than loud-mouthed and hyper evangelical preachers who believe the louder they shout and sweat and scream the more likely it is their parishoners will feel the spirit.

The media's job is to inform the public about matters of public concern. They aren't to entertain or to editorialize. Their job is to objectively inform. Newspapers and network news did this much better at one point in time, in a much less biased (though not perfect) manner.

My model would be how the WSJ reports on financial news (not their editorial page). Every day it's instructional and educational -- it leaves me well-informed and unslimed, unspinned, and unmanipulated.

OK, I agree with most of this. A few notes...

1. I definitely consider blowhards like Rush, Hannity, Maher, Al Franken, and other pundits to be media. They may not be print journalists, but they shape opinions via mass media...radio, tv, news, and these days....the internet. They are different from a casual hackjob blogger like you or me that has no credibility. And your blast against PerezHilton is incredibly naive. Where do you think legal voters age 18-21 get their daily dose? The WSJ? Many form their opinions on what is cool based off pop culture media outlets. Remember back in the early 90s when Clinton showed up on MTV to play his saxophone? That was brilliant. Pandering to the kids.

Don't forget who broke the story about John Edwards' love child....National Enquirer.

I dont put these folks on the same level as more traditional outlets, but rest assured that given the choice, celebs and polticos would prefer the pop culture endorsement. Obama is on the cover of Rolling Stone, for pete's sake. He gets it.

2. Your definition of media is ideal, but not practical. The media consists of individuals that have beliefs, agendas, and opinions. It is impossible for that to not come out at some point. You seem to be suggesting some sort of robotic regurgitation of plain facts, which is not practical. Go back over the past several presidents....how has the media portrayed them?

W: idiot
Clinton: womanizing, lying adulterer that likes to eat fast food
Bush: the wimp factor
Reagan: cowboy riding off into the sunset on a nuclear bomb. took on the russians and won
Carter: big-toothed peanut farmer

etc, etc..

There has always been media bias. To suggest otherwise simply displays a lack of understand of how the media works. You say that the bias was less at one point in time. Curious as to when, exactly. Are you talking about Walter Cronkite, when the entire country had one source of news each night and we just assumed we were being given the straight scoop? I'm not even sure he was unbiased, although he was before my time, so I cannot say.

I also enjoy the WSJ, so I am with you there.

[Levin]

Originally Posted by TripletDaddy

They shape opinions via mass media...radio, tv, news, and these days....the internet.
.

This is an indefensible definition of what "the media" is or should be.

Your motto in life: b/c it's hard, we shouldn't try. The media will never simply provide information to the public on matters of public concern and let the public (and editorialists, and pundits, yes, absolutely, we need them too) form their opinion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't demand they live up to the standards of excellence to which the profession aspires. The problem is that entertainment, punditry, and journalism have all meshed into one . . . for and because of consumers like you.

[TripletDaddy]

Originally Posted by Levin

This is an indefensible definition of what "the media" is or should be.

Your motto in life: b/c it's hard, we shouldn't try. The media will never simply provide information to the public on matters of public concern and let the public (and editorialists, and pundits, yes, absolutely, we need them too) form their opinion, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't demand they live up to the standards of excellence to which the profession aspires. The problem is that entertainment, punditry, and journalism have all meshed into one . . . for and because of consumers like you.

I don't recall ever saying that if something is hard, we shouldn't try. But what you are suggesting is a fool's errand....perfect for a guy like you that also wants to save wolves.

I do agree with you, though, that mass media has completely changed just for me. But that is the kind of influence that I have. You are lucky that you enjoy the blessing of irrelevant anonymity. Enjoy it!