First, a little light reading on an accusation made by a former ACORN employee that the New York Times spiked a story on President Obama’s association with the community organizing umbrella group because it would be “game changer”, here.
Now, a little more about this business of bailing out newspapers, the current proposed bill that would prohibit newsies from endorsing candidates and whether or not they warrant it, which we posted on earlier this week.
Pops made a very good point which we’ve decided to liberate from the comment section. He said:
The concept that newspaper could not endorse a candidate as an "educational" publication is meaningless. The main endorsements are performed in the choice of articles to be run and the manner in which the articles are presented. I quit the LATimes when I found anti-Bush commentary in the cartoon page.
He’s spot-on. The ban on official endorsements is absolutely toothless as the newspaper is free to run whatever news stories they want and which can be used to effectively slant or steer the narrative in whichever direction the editor wishes.
We recall with great clarity during the run-up to the 2004 election that one could set their watch by two anti-Bush and/or anti-Iraq war stories showing up on the front page of the L.A. Times (one above the fold and one below) every. single. Sunday. (We’re not quite sure that is the proper analogy but we’re rolling with it.)
For those of you out there that want to whine that we’re just reflexive, right-wingers who want to trash Old Media because it’s the popular thing to do, get over yourselves. We still link to the major dailies in the country on the right hand margin (including the L.A. and New York Times) because it’s free, we don’t fear liberal bias and we, yep, still read them because we know we (and you) are skilled enough readers to separate the wheat from the chaff.
Exit question: For those who are opposed to a bailout of the newspapers on the rationale that newspapers would be fearful of biting the hand that feeds them, how is the current state of journalism, in effect, any different?
UPDATE #1: Fox News has obtained an answering machine message of NYT reporter Stephanie Strom explaining to ACORN whistle-blower, “Anita” that her bosses spiked the story on the Obama/ACORN relationship. Link here, to Hot Air which has the audio of the recording. Also in video clip, Dick Morris recounts how the Times, which originally broke the Clinton/Whitewater scandal, told Morris that they would kill any further investigation if they could get access to an exclusive interview with Bill Clinton for whom Morris worked for at the time. And your tax dollars will be going to preserve this “journalism”?
Posts
4 comments:
Old media is dying because they are pathetic and hypocritical. The good news is that no amount of government cash will make them more relevant. The bad news is that it will become one more way to waste you tax dollars.
There is no reason the newspaper business can't be saved with a different business model.
Why has it taken 100 years for this media to die? "Remember the Maine? To hell with Spain"
"It was the cowardly Spanish"
"You furnish the pictures, I'll furnish the war." (Randolph Hearst)
This was 8th grade history folks. Don't trust the media. They have ability far beyond our government.
'Dawg, blessin' the 'net
Bailout the newspapers, then change the name to Pravda
They will die by the ties by which they align. Their independance has already been sacrificed. By definition, a journalist should be independant. They have been a walking cadaver for years.
Post a Comment