Friday, March 18, 2005

Ladies and Gentleman....

I have returned.

Following, as many of you many have noticed, quite a lengthy hiatus, I've decided to come back and talk about some things that bother me.

Thing #1: When was the last time you saw Tim Russert anywhere outside of a newsroom? This is a mere example. Think broad. More and more, the news seems to be broadcast by people in newsrooms, in front of green screens, in a hotel room 20 miles from the bombing where unclean pimento is the closest thing to horror.

Where is the journalism? Where are the stories of atrocities revealed? Have all the atrocities simply vanished over night? Is there no longer a reason to worry and hope and pray for this world? Of course not. So why don't we seem to hear about it?

Where are the attack dogs? Why do we keep flinging ourselves against faux stories, looking for the smoke in a wet grass fire? Is it because a lot of smoke on tv looks better then a towering inferno? Why is Jackson receiving more coverage than haliburton? Why Condi's nonexistent bid for the presidency receiving more press than SE Asian? Why is not a single American camera not present in Africa at the moment?

Why are we focusing on insurance agencies, rather than young, black women, who represent one of the most startling and horrifying aids epidemic in american history? When did news start being a business?

Here's an even more painful question. Why do bloggers like myself represent a threat to the news industry? The answer is simple. We do what they've been doing over the past few years FOR FREE! That's it! That's the problem! That's why radio talk show people are threatened. That's why some people keep denouncing us. That's why other people think we should get the same rights as journalists (hint: it's because, if they don't do anything more than we do, they need a justification for their benefits).

Ok. You wanna know why the BBC and NPR are the best news servicing in the business at the moment? It's not because they are particularly liberal or conservative. it's not because they're more philosophical and elitist. It's because they don't give a crap about making money. Their only goal is the tell the news. Commercial news orgs. goal is to make money telling the news. How do you make money? By cutting costs, such as FINDING OUT WHAT THE FREAKING NEWS IS!!!

That's all. G'night.

posted by Nathan at Friday, March 18, 2005

|

1 Comments:

Blogger Joel said...

Wow. That was an insanely stupid post, sorry.

Why Condi and not SE Asia? Was your TV broken for the 1,000 hours of consecutive coverage from the tsunami area? I'm sure there's still plenty to report from SE Asia, but it isn't like they dedicated a ton of minutes to the Rice thing either. They mentioned it. Asked a question or two. Heaven forbid.

And you attack Tim Russert. Why on earth Tim Russert? Maybe I found a reason:

http://slate.msn.com/id/2085153/

Because he tore through the list of deomcratic canidates? He's probably the reason you lost the election. No, probably not. That statement is as stupid as yours, but it does get to my main point about Russert. The dude is the host of a popular show. That's like saying "I see Dave Chapell doing stand up but not Dave Letterman. What a wuss!!" Russert has other things to do. He isn't a normal newsman. He's a host. He's approx. the WORST person you could have singled out.

News has always been broadcast from a newsroom. Cronkite didn't cry from the back of Kennedy's limo, and there have always been men on the street. I think Rather started out as a White House coorespondent. The same system still exists today. Granted the budget has changed it some. In the past, I imagine most of the major news agencies would have had a man in Rome full time. This go around there was a lapse while they all rushed reporters over the pond. I doubt NPR did much better. The BBC, maybe, but they have a pretty major geographical advantage there.

Is there a problem with news? Yeah, there is. It is budget driven, and sadly, that goes for wunder-news organizations NPR and BBC too. The massive media conglomerates pose what I view as a serious threat. The bottom line does become more important. That's why I went on vacation to Chicago, not a business trip to Seattle over spring break.

But, that's just kind of the way it is. There's still tons of great news being reported by the major networks for those who aren't predisposed to hate them. 60 minutes, for instance, has enjoyed a hell of a last couple of weeks. They landed Canseco, steroids in the NFL and Jane Fonda saying she was a dirty Viet Cong whore, all in like a two week span. Granted two of those are sports, it's still a good run.

So what do you want? More Haliburton? Why? Because you strive for a way to ruin Bush? Maybe....just maybe....there's nothing there.

Also, and just a theory here, it's about 100x harder to dig HARD core shit up now than it was in the watergate days because the world has changed so much. As an example, college coaches. K-State's coaches used to be good friends with all the reporters. So did players. Coaches used to go out to lunch with beat reporters, just the two, just for the hell of it, all the time. Now there are rules. Restrictions. The two can meet for interviews only at scheduled times and only for limited amounts of time. The program is clad in secrecy.

Years of "Attack dog" journalism took it toll. The coach can't afford to be burned by an enterprising reporter with a hunch, so it's easier to cast them all out than face mostly silly accusations.

I feel the same has happened with the president. There's no trust between the office and the press any longer, thus the doors are closed and its nearly impossible to report stuff.

And about your "golden days" of journalism, how golden were they? So great that the press never revealed the extent to which FDR was crippled? So honest that they consistantly looked the other way as women slipped out of the Kennedy White House?

And I don't think any secret government agents have tried to shutdown your blog that's been updated twice in the last 6 months.

4/05/2005 8:34 AM  

Post a Comment

<< Home