Kos's post on Steve Gillard's post on the front page was quite thought-provoking. I don't agree with all of Steve's sentiments. But here is something I think is worthy of more discussion:
If CNN basically covers this story all Saturday, it's news.
How many times have frustrated Kossacks posted about runaway brides or exploding toads, saying "Why the fuck is CNN covering this? This isn't news!"
But the reality we have to accept is that the "news" is not some type of absolute thing that exists externally to our own society; there aren't blippets of "news" balloons that are plucked out of the sky. The news isn't objective. It's made.
And the root of our problem is the newsmakers.
No, not newsmakers in the sense of "people in the news". I am talking about the people that literally make the news, that deem what to put on the airwaves, that package it up with fancy graphics and feed it to masses.
It is they who decide that Paris' stolen cell is news while the genocide in Darfur isn't. It is they who decide to lead with the runaway bride than the millions of girls who are forced to be brides at the age of 11 or 12. It's their call.
So when Steve Gillard says to latch onto their news and discuss it in a broader context, I have to wonder....how?
Because that proposition requires that one have an iota of faith that the current newsmakers will (a) allow us a forum to expand the debate and (b) respond to our debate in a productive manner.
Now, let's take the runaway bride. If one was to go on Paula Zahn now and begin talking about why this girl blamed Hispanics, or about another broader issue, what would happen? Does anyone honestly believe that Ms. Zahn would say "Why, you have an excellent point. Do you think this issue brings to light the tensions between those in the upper class south, like Jennifer, and a certain type of isolation from the diversity of this nation, which causes, in essence, a type of xenophobia towards American citizens themselves?" No. If the guest did try to expand and deepen the dialogue, Ms. Zahn would gush "Ok. But what about the $10,000 worth of gifts she registered...Lenox, Kate Spade....what do you think she should do? And, most importantly, what about the flowers????"
And that's because they make the news. They shape it, they define its contours, and any external attempt to manipulate the debate is...quite simply, rebuffed and ignored.
In the blogosphere, sure, we could adopt the Gillard approach. We can take these fluff pieces and place them in a larger context, and have a good debate within our own reality. But as far as the news, and cable news in particular is concerned, we have no chance, no outlet to influence the dialogue in such a way.
And so, my view is to let the newsmakers make their news. Face the reality that no matter how many calls, letters, or emails we make, the right-wing noise machine and the corportate media won't bat an eye. Because they know. They know they have essentially absolute control of the medium, they know how to feed the masses, and they can make whatever news they want.
Can we subvert that? Not the way Gillard proposes, not by playing by their rules, on their turf. I do think we can subvert it by letting them be victims of their own demise. The news they make is salacious, trivial, and propaganda. They think this is what the American public wants. Perhaps, but I think, as evidenced by their plummeting ratings, that viewers are tiring of their brand of news.
Which is why, to subvert them is not to fight in their medium, but to fight in ours. The creation of new media outlets like RawStory and E Pluribus Media allow us to make our own news. It lets us be the newsmakers, to decide which issues are "newsworthy."
And blogs like DailyKos and others should, in my opinion, keep focused on addressing the news we think is important--political corruption, social isssues, the wars, etc.
Because, if the current trend holds, more and more people will reject the CNN/FOX/MSNBC "news" and instead embrace the internet outlets as the source of real, important news which affects this nation.
And when they do turn off their TV because they're sick of wall-to-wall Ben&Jen or runaway bride coverage, and when they do seek intellectual refuge in places like DailyKos, or Gillard's blog, and similar sources....do you think they'll want to read about more of the same? Even if it is in a broader context?
Keep writing about the war that has been forgotten. Keep researching Social Security and risk accounts. Keep addressing the slashing of the education budget. Will we seem out-of-touch and elitist? Or, in the cacophony of slander and sensationalism that is the modern media, will we seem like the most grounded, rational, and productive corner of the blogosphere?