[Industrialblog,
September 15, 2004]
OK, I'll weigh in seriously about CBS ...
Television is entertainment. It is not news. It is not journalism. It is designed to generate powerful emotional reactions that will keep you watching [usually self-righteous anger].
Words, sound and images are presented in ways that are enormously manipulative. Strong emotional reactions generate strong viewership, and that means strong ratings. At the same time, television has a trivializing tendency, reducing serious subjects to, again, entertainment.
CBS is at the forefront of the pretense that it is a serious news-gathering operation: It isn't, and it hasn't been for a long, long time. If you get your news from CBS, you're going to be manipulated.
So CBS doesn't have much credibility to lose, IMHO.
I know the bloggers are enjoying their first real ass-kicking of a network — and yes, network television deserves the boots tromping over its ass — so I'm not raining on anyone's parade. In fact, it's long, long overdue. Good for INDC, Instapundit, and the rest of the right-wing conspiracy.
It's not just a question of bias. There is more than liberal bias, there is media bias — the bias that gets woven deep within the medium through story selection and story construction. It's a topic for another day. But just say the rules of selecting and producing stories for the television marketplace makes requirements on producers to present facts in ways that aren't always justified.
Anyway, Dan Rather, credible? Well, OK, a little. The guy really said, "Kenneth, What's the frequency?" But no, Rather and CBS don't have a lot of credibility to trade. Their credibility is like a house of cards about to collapse. Or a rotting corpse poked with a stick, that disintegrates while snakes and maggots scurry for a new corpse in which to hide.
Not that I've got anything against television news. But my two months of insight into a television network foreign bureau many years ago left me a bit jaded. Truth was irrelevant. Organizational priorities mattered. No one cared. If on camera you can stand in front of Manila Bay and say you're in Subic Bay, what else are you willing to lie about while you're on camera?
So yeah, CBS didn't realize the world had changed and they could no longer bullshit the viewers thanks to the blogosphere. My hope is this will keep them on their toes a bit better.
But you know CBS isn't any worse than NBC, ABC, CNN or BBC.
Words, sound and images are presented in ways that are enormously manipulative. Strong emotional reactions generate strong viewership, and that means strong ratings. At the same time, television has a trivializing tendency, reducing serious subjects to, again, entertainment.
CBS is at the forefront of the pretense that it is a serious news-gathering operation: It isn't, and it hasn't been for a long, long time. If you get your news from CBS, you're going to be manipulated.
So CBS doesn't have much credibility to lose, IMHO.
I know the bloggers are enjoying their first real ass-kicking of a network — and yes, network television deserves the boots tromping over its ass — so I'm not raining on anyone's parade. In fact, it's long, long overdue. Good for INDC, Instapundit, and the rest of the right-wing conspiracy.
It's not just a question of bias. There is more than liberal bias, there is media bias — the bias that gets woven deep within the medium through story selection and story construction. It's a topic for another day. But just say the rules of selecting and producing stories for the television marketplace makes requirements on producers to present facts in ways that aren't always justified.
Anyway, Dan Rather, credible? Well, OK, a little. The guy really said, "Kenneth, What's the frequency?" But no, Rather and CBS don't have a lot of credibility to trade. Their credibility is like a house of cards about to collapse. Or a rotting corpse poked with a stick, that disintegrates while snakes and maggots scurry for a new corpse in which to hide.
Not that I've got anything against television news. But my two months of insight into a television network foreign bureau many years ago left me a bit jaded. Truth was irrelevant. Organizational priorities mattered. No one cared. If on camera you can stand in front of Manila Bay and say you're in Subic Bay, what else are you willing to lie about while you're on camera?
So yeah, CBS didn't realize the world had changed and they could no longer bullshit the viewers thanks to the blogosphere. My hope is this will keep them on their toes a bit better.
But you know CBS isn't any worse than NBC, ABC, CNN or BBC.
:-)
Of course not. They're just the first up against the wall.
The hope, I believe, is that the revolution is here and they won't be the last against the wall.
Oh, wait, that was the CIA, not CBS. Sorry.
(And yes, "arguably" is arguably one of the greatest weasel words ever.)
What's in the kool-aid you're drinking :)?
And what's this about "kool-aid"? I thought ad hominem arguments were off-limits. Implying that someone's opinion is drug-induced is a pretty clear-cut case. Or are you just parroting a popular phrase that's making the rounds?
Goodness, no. The French -- shock! -- may have been behind the whole thing and done a decent job.
Why would the White House release to the media, without comment, documents it believed to be (screamingly, painfully obvious) forgeries?
And should we be very frightened over having actually lost an intelligence battle with the French - if indeed they hoodwinked us with excellent forgeries?
The White House didn't release the forgeries.
Press Gaggle by Scott McClellan
(White House Press Secretary)
September 10, 2004
I guess the forgeries weren't screamingly obvious enough for the White House.
And let me get this straight. You are actually arguing against the one hour it took the blogosphere to debunk these forgeries -- that is, you are arguing against what actually occurred ...
OK, Harry.
Perhaps you're using a different definition of "release" than me.
What's frustrating, though, is to be discussing this at all. There are a half dozen reasons why the White House might have handed out the documents -- and yes, it looks like they were fooled temporarily by the screamingly obvious forgeries. That happens to busy people when they have to react to frauds passed under their noses.
But it still doesn't change the fact that the documents didn't fool the public for an hour -- so yes, that's a screamingly obvious forgery. The White House probably would've caught it if it had time to investigate -- but remember, it had to react immediately. Even screamingly obvious forgeries take a few news cycles to authoritatively debunk, Harry. They decided to play it straight until then.