Skip to main content

Let’s face it, objective journalism, the former guiding principle for newspapers and information gathering, is dead. As dead as the New Deal, having lived and died for approximately the same time span in US history. (Coincidence? I think not . . .) Being a librarian, this causes me actual angst. Professionally, I am ethically bound to provide my patrons with as many points of view as we can afford so they can make their own determinations as to how (and what) they want to learn. But what am I to do when the vast majority of those sources are so unbelievably slanted as to become worthless for factual research? We used to be able to use Time/Newsweek or the NYT/LAT as some sort of baseline for “the facts”, from which a reader could then venture forth to find more obviously opinionated takes on what those facts meant. Where does one go now, however, to find those “facts”, painstakingly gathered and simply presented, for the novice student to begin that journey? I think it has become impossible; there is no such place. (Cynics would say that there never has been, but I think for most of the 20th century, one could pretty much rely on the NYT and the WaPo for the basic elements of “truth”, and Time/Newsweek for a slightly more involved, but still fairly drawn, portrait of interpretation of events.)

I am personally vested in discovering the truth about current events, especially politics (surprise, given my presence here, right?), and have always been a historian by interest (my first degrees were in history), where the “truth” has always been a tough not to crack. Historians of periods before the 20th century had to glean the facts about anything—even the most notable and famous of individuals—from scanty and/or seriously biased written records, or from other, non-written contemporary artifacts entirely. (The latter forced the profession to assimilate and incorporate non-traditional skills, borrowing from math, sociology, anthropology, and even art fields of study.) But for most of the past century, the written record is vast and substantially reliable (comparatively, at the very least), especially when taken as a whole. Unfortunately for us and future historians, we have reverted back to a pre-20th century landscape, where instead of having journalists wanting to write the “first draft of history”; we have mere shills transcribing some predetermined narrative dictated to them.

What can a librarian faced with this type of world do? Collection development for a public library can be a tricky thing. One must balance one’s budget, the public’s desire for instant access to everything at any time, and (for some) the validity of the works themselves. Far too often, that last one is totally ignored by professional librarians. If something is popular—say, the latest screed put out by someone like Ann Coulter—they feel we need to have it. To that, I say, “Fine. But I don’t want it on the same shelf that we put actual histories written by men and women dedicated to real research using reliable sources and rigorous historical methods.” And I get completely overridden or treated like I’m not deadly serious. Having a piece of trash like Glenn Beck’s Common Sense sitting next to Bernard Bailyn’s The Ideological Origins of the American Revolution is a personal affront to my sensibilities as a librarian, historian, and an American. On a professional level, though, it galls me because I know that by owning it and placing it there, our library gives Beck’s tripe the filmy gauze of respectability he so desperately craves (and that his publisher and financial backers literally count on.)

We readers and writers at Daily Kos often wonder how we are going to turn the ship of state around from the disastrous shoals of stupidity and evil on which we are just about grounded dead in the water. I’ve voiced many times that I think it is actually too late to turn around, and that opinion is formed due to my experience as a librarian; if I can’t convince my bosses (who, by and large, are intelligent—and even liberal—women) of the pernicious effects of having purposefully misleading tracts on our shelves, how on earth will I be able to dissuade people and students from assuming they contain some truths? We spent public money for it! I see this question not in terms of a librarian’s professional ethical “code” for collection development, but instead as one of more basic common sense: Why do we want to have books that are known to be factually inaccurate in our collection alongside those that aren’t? Until librarians, who are supposed to be custodians of knowledge (cough), address this simple question with more than mealy-mouthed platitudes as an answer, we are doomed to fight ignorance with both hands tied behind our backs.

Originally posted to bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:09 AM PDT.

Also republished by Community Spotlight.

Poll

Where do you go for the news?

26%75 votes
5%15 votes
1%5 votes
3%9 votes
1%3 votes
0%0 votes
1%3 votes
1%5 votes
40%113 votes
17%48 votes

| 278 votes | Vote | Results

EMAIL TO A FRIEND X
Your Email has been sent.
You must add at least one tag to this diary before publishing it.

Add keywords that describe this diary. Separate multiple keywords with commas.
Tagging tips - Search For Tags - Browse For Tags

?

More Tagging tips:

A tag is a way to search for this diary. If someone is searching for "Barack Obama," is this a diary they'd be trying to find?

Use a person's full name, without any title. Senator Obama may become President Obama, and Michelle Obama might run for office.

If your diary covers an election or elected official, use election tags, which are generally the state abbreviation followed by the office. CA-01 is the first district House seat. CA-Sen covers both senate races. NY-GOV covers the New York governor's race.

Tags do not compound: that is, "education reform" is a completely different tag from "education". A tag like "reform" alone is probably not meaningful.

Consider if one or more of these tags fits your diary: Civil Rights, Community, Congress, Culture, Economy, Education, Elections, Energy, Environment, Health Care, International, Labor, Law, Media, Meta, National Security, Science, Transportation, or White House. If your diary is specific to a state, consider adding the state (California, Texas, etc). Keep in mind, though, that there are many wonderful and important diaries that don't fit in any of these tags. Don't worry if yours doesn't.

You can add a private note to this diary when hotlisting it:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from your hotlist?
Are you sure you want to remove your recommendation? You can only recommend a diary once, so you will not be able to re-recommend it afterwards.
Rescue this diary, and add a note:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary from Rescue?
Choose where to republish this diary. The diary will be added to the queue for that group. Publish it from the queue to make it appear.

You must be a member of a group to use this feature.

Add a quick update to your diary without changing the diary itself:
Are you sure you want to remove this diary?
(The diary will be removed from the site and returned to your drafts for further editing.)
(The diary will be removed.)
Are you sure you want to save these changes to the published diary?

Comment Preferences

  •  Alas, this fetish we have about "telling both (18+ / 0-)

    sides of a story" is harmful in so many ways: not the least of which is that a) it assumes that all questions are only two dimensional, and b) is assumes that both "sides" of the arguments rely on facts and method, not just opinion and ideology and what we WISH were true.

    Thus, you'll continue to have to put misinformation on your shelves. You're being asked to legitimize propaganda, and I don't think it's right but I also don't know what to do about it, either.

    I resent that. I demand snark, and overly so -- Markos Moulitsas.

    by commonmass on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:25:12 AM PDT

    •  I loved the quote--I can't find it (6+ / 0-)

      where someone compared the two sides to (I think) presenting food, where one side was a steak and the other was a plate of broken glass. I'm mangling it terribly, I know . . .

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:33:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  that is the epitome of lazy news production (7+ / 0-)

      producers pretend that they cover real news, with real issues, and flush out the truth by presenting "Both Sides" when in fact, it is masturbation at best.

      Sometimes it seems that this lame excuse for reporting is interrupted only when the media engages in mass orges, typically involving a besotted blonde bimbette who skipped her wedding and is now missing in some Carib isle, or when three kidnapped girls are found a decade later. All the networks then rush to concoct a "new, fresh view" and continue to beat the story like some freshly expired equine.

      What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

      by agnostic on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:36:22 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  One of the key points I taught to college... (20+ / 0-)

      ...journalism students and instilled in rookie (and other reporters) under my supervision is that almost every story has MORE THAN TWO SIDES.

      Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

      by Meteor Blades on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:35:46 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I am honored by your presence! (8+ / 0-)

        I think even thinking about a story's "sides" creates a false sense of closure about how one approaches historical/journalistic evidence, but that's just me . . .

        "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

        by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:01:57 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Well, a couple of things besides ... (8+ / 0-)

          ...the philosophical approach drives that "sides" theme: deadlines and space.

          Don't tell me what you believe, show me what you do and I will tell you what you believe.

          by Meteor Blades on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:36:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Fair enough. I would also think (5+ / 0-)

            a drive for simplicity--a stereotyped editor's prodding "Punch that up, MB!"--perhaps?

            "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

            by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:53:37 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  Deadlines no problem. Space big problem. (2+ / 0-)
            Recommended by:
            commonmass, Words In Action

            Whether it's column inches or seconds.

            Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

            by dadadata on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:47:01 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

          •  I don't know how accurate this is today, but (4+ / 0-)

            when I knew some reporters face-to-face in another town long ago, they told me it basically went like this:

            Report on the stories you are assigned to. Try to provide the correct point of view. Find and include a contrasting point of view so the editor would see it as "balanced."

            Just one quote from one source would do. But supposedly, they couldn't just submit an article on practically anything without finding "the opposing viewpoint."

            As you said, with deadlines in mind, that makes for rushed reporting at times (like almost always).

            "The law is meant to be my servant and not my master, still less my torturer and my murderer." -- James Baldwin. July 11, 1966.

            by YucatanMan on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:22:57 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

        •  Historical "evidence" can often be expert opinion (0+ / 0-)

          which some centuries later is not quite at the same level it was in the original examination. Let me give a couple of examples.

          Herodotus who lived a couple of centuries before Eratosthenes in Book II chapter 6 of his histories gives the schoenus as a measure of Egypt equivalent to sixty furlongs (stadions of 185 m). In Greek antiquity there were reckoned eight stadions to a mia chilios (thousand orquia) and 75 mia chilios (600 stadions of 185 m or 111km) to a degree so that the circumference of the Earth in Egypt where Eratosthenes measured it would have been 39,960,000 m. ~ 40,000 km at the equator.

          6. Then secondly, as to Egypt itself, the extent of it along the sea is sixty schoines, according to our definition of Egypt as extending from the Gulf of Plinthine to the Serbonian lake, along which stretches Mount Casion; from this lake then the sixty schoines are reckoned: for those of men who are poor in land have their country measured by fathoms, those who are less poor by furlongs, those who have much land by parasangs, and those who have land in very great abundance by schoines: now the parasang is equal to thirty furlongs, and each schoine, which is an Egyptian measure, is equal to sixty furlongs. So there would be an extent of three thousand six hundred furlongs for the coast-land of Egypt.
          For the second example the Mereneptah stele was mistranslated by Flinders Petrie in1896 as having a final passage reading Israel, and discussing Yenoam and Ashkelon when actually its discussing a Libyan incursion across Egypts borders.
          The stele was discovered in 1896 by Flinders Petrie in the ancient Egyptian capital of Thebes. Petrie called upon Wilhelm Spiegelberg, a German philologist in his archaeological team, to translate the inscription. Spiegelberg was puzzled by one symbol towards the end, that of a people or tribe whom Merneptah (also written Merenptah) had victoriously smitten--"I.si.ri.ar?" Petrie quickly suggested that it read: "Israel!" Spiegelberg agreed that this translation must be correct. "Won't the reverends be pleased?" remarked Petrie.
          This has been often mentioned as the earliest evidence for the State of Israel but is actually nothing of the sort.

          A later translation by Breasted is still wrong

             Tjehenu is vanquished,
              Khatti at peace,
              Canaan is captive with all woe.
              Ashkelon is conquered,
              Gezer seized,
              Yanoam made nonexistent;
              Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
              Khor is become a widow for Egypt

          The first six of seven parapgraphs are about Libyans invading the Delta and then supposedly we jump to discussing the Nine Bows, 38 lines of this translation deal with Merneptah's campaign against the Libyans and their allies but eight lines near the end are all that anyone ever looks at

          Here are what the eight lines actually read.
          After a long discourse on his campgn against
          Merey and the Libyans the stele doesn't begin
          with the noun Ashkelon, it begins

          ini u (fetch) isk(gifts tributes)[ist](property belongings)
          k3 pdty (bowmen) thmi (foreign)

          bring fetch [the] tribute gifts property belongings
          [of the] foreign bowmen [to the]

          fetch bring gifts provide tribute to the bowmen
          whose abode is the walled village or military camp

          hu (military encampment or walled village)
          mt det.dm G42 fatted duck (provisions)
          dmr (abode) tmhi y (foreigners)
          military camp, [get them] provisions and quarters

          fetch the belongings of the foreign bowment to the
          hu (military encampment or walled village) mt det.dm
          G42 fatted duck (provisions) dmr (abode) tmhi y (foreigners)
          military camp, [get them] provisions and quarters

          fetch bring gifts provide tribute to the bowmen
          whose abode is the walled village or military camp

          I'd read it as he's bringing in some tribute
          to the foreign bowmen, possibly ha ibrw
          the mounted bowmen of Canaan identified
          on the inscription of Ramesses II, carved to
          celebrate the battle of Kadesh

          fetch bring gifts provide tribute to the bowmen
          who abode in the walled village or military camp

          Its outside the borrowed formula used on line 26
          and there's no way it references Askelon, Gezer
          or Yenoam let alone Israel and even the reading
          of wasted, bare of seed and widow for Egypt
          seems poetic license at best.

          To begin with the ending translated at line 27 as

          Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
          Yanoam made nonexistent;
          Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
          Khor is become a widow for Egypt.
          All who roamed have been subdued.

          goes against the idea that Egyptian is VSO
          so we might hold it suspect that the translation
          is wrong from that aspect before even looking
          at anything else such as the initial y in Israel
          which Wilhelm Spiegelberg read as an i

          "I.si.ri.ar" = Israel

          read in context it gets worse
          Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
          turns out to read

          V=Fetch bring
          S
          gifts provide tribute to
          IO= the bowmen
          DO who abide in that
          P= walled village or military camp

          Yanoam made nonexistent;
          is derived from a determinative

          V=seen as
          S= a place for bulls

          Israel is wasted, bare of seed, comes in here

          O=her mouth ruined and weak
          P= Khor

          V=is become
          S=a widow for
          O=Egypt.

          to put it in English
          SVIODOPT

          S = the bowmen
          V= thank for
          O= their service
          P = of the garrison

          S= a place for bulls
          V= is become
          O=a widow for
          P= Egypt.

          S= her mouth
          V= is
          O= a ruin
          Place = Khor

          Line 28 is the final titulary formula

          All who roamed have been subdued.
          By the King of Upper and Lower Egypt, Banere-meramun,
          Son of Re, Merneptah, Content with Maat,
          Given life like Re every day.

          Breasted's Line 26 starts here

          The princes are prostrate saying: "Shalom!"
          Not one of the Nine Bows lifts his head:
          Tjehenu is vanquished, Khatti at peace,
          Canaan is captive with all woe.

          Breasted's Line 27 starts here

          Ashkelon is conquered, Gezer seized,
          Yanoam made nonexistent;
          Israel is wasted, bare of seed,
          Khor is become a widow for Egypt.

          Breasteds transliteration reads
          "inw iskrny"
          Ashkelon is conquered,

          but there he has mistaken a T10 pd bow for an r
          to get rny instead of pdty (bowmen)

          Breasted goes on
          "mhw m kdr"
          Gezer seized

          where the stele reads n mr hst w (Nubians) m tmhi (foreigners)
          Breasted omits the determinative and there is no kdr or ynw'

          ynw'
          Yenoam

          Breasted has ir w m tm wn
          to be "made nonexistent"

          that passage reads
          ir w (seen as) mtmnwnny (a place for bulls)

          fetch bring gifts provide tribute to the bowmen
          who abide in that walled village or military camp
          seen as a place for bulls

          The real issue is whether the y properly goes
          at the end or the beginning of a word.

          Breasted has
          ysr i3r fk.ti
          Israel is wasted, bare of seed,

          the stela has s:y:r iA r:Z1 T14 A1*B1:plural f:n:t:wr
          sy(her) r (mouth voice name) iA (ruin) r (foreign people) weak
          her mouth ruined and weak

          Breasted has
          bn prt f h3rw

          the stela has
          bn pr r t f plural h3rw

          Breasted has
          hpr.w m h3 rt n
          Khor is become a widow for Egypt.

          the stela has
          hp r w Mn:sw w r s3(red crown of lower Egypt)

          Gardiner has for widow M12 h3 Ar:t Det D3B1

          The stele actually reads middle of line 27 mtwny
          a place for the combat of bulls)
          s:y(her):r (mouth, voice, name) iA (ruin) r:Z1

          I don't think that is intended to read Israel

          Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

          by rktect on Thu May 09, 2013 at 02:47:26 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  create a new dewey decimal number for (10+ / 0-)

      "propaganda."

      Not that anyone knows the Dewey Decimal system anymore.

      _"Love is the rosebud of an hour; Friendship the everlasting flower."_ Brook Boothby

      by Keith930 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:05:53 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Economist, Nation, Mother Jones, (10+ / 0-)

    Science, Science Digest, Smithsonian, and on the iPad, BBC, Early Edition and Zite.

    By the way, USA Toady has to be the absolutely worst app ever made for the iPad. Ads, ads, ads, ads, ads, followed by ads, with a sprinkling of ads, before you can ever get any news.

    What we call god is merely a living creature with superior technology & understanding. If their fragile egos demand prayer, they lose that superiority.

    by agnostic on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:29:46 AM PDT

  •  Journalism died (10+ / 0-)

    when Akre/Wilson vs. New World Communications was decided by a District Court of Appeal (2nd, FL) and went no further. This was after two juries sided with the plaintiffs, Akre and Wilson.

    February 14, 2003. The decision stood that a corporate owner could fire their journalist employee for not "embellishing" their news copy with words that may or may not mislead.

    We agree with WTVT that the FCC’s policy against the intentional falsification of the news – which the FCC has called its “news distortion policy” – does not qualify as the required “law, rule, or regulation” under section 448.102
    Until this travesty is either stricken from employment law or heard in a higher court, we will never have "objective journalism" in this country, ever again.

  •  I wrote a diary on this (8+ / 0-)

    The journalism we admired lived a short life, and primarily only in the US, from 1950-1990. It was killed primarily by the Internet. Here is my longer piece on this.

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    Prior to the 1950s the MSM was in an advocacy phase, much like Europe. Since the onset of the Internet reporting has gradually returned to advocacy, where we are again today. I think advocacy is here for the long term.

    I think you need an eclectic stream of information to understand the news today. Nearly every source has a bias and filters the news to fit that template. There are not two sides to every story, there are usually five or six sides. I am constantly surprised by how much misinformation we have in diaries here at DKOS. Most of the time the comments will point out the glaring errors of fact.

    A true professional journalist will report on a story and at the end you will have no clue if the author is conservative or progressive. There aren't many of those left, because the economics of news has made them a rare species.  

    "let's talk about that"

    by VClib on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:41:33 AM PDT

    •  it wasn't "killed by the internet" (8+ / 0-)

      it was killed by fools, rubes, liars and con artists who bought off some of our judges and de-regulated our telecommunications.

      "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

      by lunachickie on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:11:52 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  No print journalism was killed by the Internet (7+ / 0-)

        First, it took the revenues which paid for high quality reporters and journalists. Second, when it took the revenue it took the profits which insulated the print media from the influence of advertisers. Third, the Internet gave people access to free news on a more timely basis. The fact that the "news" was often provided by unpaid, unedited, participants didn't matter.

        It's a much more complex story regarding broadcast news, but there is no debate that the Internet killed print media.

        "let's talk about that"

        by VClib on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:34:58 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Then you need to broaden your (3+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          blueoasis, Fulgour, Words In Action

          timeline, since the Internet itself, let alone news sources on the 'net, didn't become popular until later in the 1990s; it couldn't have affected print to the extent you assert before that . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:41:40 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Well said. (4+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          lotlizard, bryduck, VClib, dobleremolque

          Broadcast news is suffering from the same financial pressures, not just from the internet, but from the proliferation of cable TV channels.  We're no longer limited to three networks, plus a couple of independent stations, when we choose our evening TV viewing. That cuts down on the newscasts' ad revenue, so they respond by cutting costs.

          Think back to news coverage of the Vietnam war (lots of correspondents over there, with actual film and reports of what was happening), compared with coverage of our wars in the last decade (no reporters overseas, just folks sitting at a news desk talking to pentagon spokesmen and other "experts".)

          TV news, like newspapers, has cut way down on actual reporting (i.e. professional people providing facts, generally trying to be unbiased), and filled in instead with more and more opinion.  What news there is focuses on stories that are cheap and easy to cover (weather, sports, traffic accidents, police activity).

          As for hiring investigative journalists -- not so much.  Pay somebody to work day after day on a report that may or may not pan out?  Sorry, the budget doesn't allow for it.

        •  Disagree (0+ / 0-)

          The Big Bad Internet didn't kill anything. It was already dead.

          "The “Left” is NOT divided on the need to oppose austerity and the Great Betrayal. The Third Way is not left or center or even right. It is Wall Street on the Potomac."--Bill Black

          by lunachickie on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:46:31 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

    •  I would put the start date of "objectivity" (3+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      VClib, blueoasis, Words In Action

      decades earlier (see this piece, where the author points to Lippmann talking about it in 1931), but I agree that the "Golden Age" of journalism was in the time you propose.
      Every story may have a multi-faceted nature, but the truth--even if unknowable to any but the primary actors in an event, if then--is not. But that is irrelevant; nobody is even trying to get to the truth anymore . . .

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:32:44 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  Rhetorical question: What did I.F. Stone think of (8+ / 0-)

      this purported Golden Age of American journalism from 1950-1950?  

               Not that I dispute that we've had a grotesque deterioration of standards in the last 20 years; but IMO it's been a transformation of the Land of the One-Eyed King into the Land of the Completely Blind.  

              Was the establishment media's subservient,  ass-kissing promotion of the Bushies' WMD bushwa  leading up to the Iraq war shameful?  Of course.  But how much skepticism/criticism was seen in the establishment media in response to the equally duplicitous Gulf of Tonkin (Non-)Incident and the subsequent build-up in American forces in Vietnam?  Yeah, Cronkite eventually turned against the war after Tet, but by the equivalent time in Iraq most of the media outside the usual Neanderthal suspects had turned against Bush and his pre- emptive war of choice.

            And, speaking of rhetorical questions, why was Murrow such a hero for calling out McCarthy?  Obviously it was because the bulk of the establishment media was either on board with McCarthy's hysteria hustle or was too intimidated by him and HUAC to point out how assinine and UnAmerican were most of their accusations and activities.

           No, if you want to find anything approaching a Golden Age of American journalism, you have to go back to the pre-World War I press of innumerable privately-owned city dailies with a huge range of political editorial orientations, including not a few socialist ones.  Even if Hearst did give it its own version of Murdoch,  that press had room for numerous muck-rackers, iconoclasts like Bierce and Mencken, and for the occasional anti-imperialist screed by Mark Twain.  

               IMO, Reagan et al. and the continuing consolidation of media ownership by enormous corporations has only brought to its logical conclusion the process started by Wilson in World War I when he did his best to turn the press into an arm of the nascent National Security State, even though we were in no more danger then of being invaded by Germany than of being nuked right now by Iran or N. Korea much less al-Queda.  (E.g., this is when Mencken felt constrained to stop writing his "Sun" columns because of the trouble his anti-war. opinions were causing the paper.)

             Is it really a co-incidence that the current corporatist custodian of the National Security State is using Wilson's 1917 Espionage Act to throttle whistle-blowing--I.e.,the life-blood of investigative journalism (see "Deep Throat")?  Terribly sad that the only two academics to be elected President should be so dedicated to the suppression of free speech for the protection of spurious security.  

      "If you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- M. Twain

      by Oliver St John Gogarty on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:46:58 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  "1950-1950" was obviously a typo for "1950-1990," (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        blueoasis

        although Uncle Siggy might beg to differ.

        "If you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- M. Twain

        by Oliver St John Gogarty on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:49:24 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  We all get to define our own Golden Age (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          philipmerrill, bryduck

          I was using the definition taught in Journalism Schools that the press is should be a non-partisan reporter of the facts.

          The bare knuckles era before WWI was a good example of advocacy news and, with the Internet leading the way, we may return to that.

          "let's talk about that"

          by VClib on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:54:59 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  My point is that the purported "non-partisan (6+ / 0-)

            reporter of facts" post-war press was a myth, as I.F. Stone demonstrated again and again:  the "facts" reported were those defined as such by the political and economic establishment.  

                    Maybe the best example of what I'm talking about was the tacit agreement by most of the press not to point out the elephant in the Reagan living room:  that the "Great Communicator," especially during his second term, was a half-demented shill with a tenuous grasp of the facts much less real issues.  He was the "Teflon President" because the "objective press" refused to focus on the obvious fact that the Emperor had no cognitive clothes (to mix my metaphors hopelessly).

                      There were some obvious exceptions to the rule of the American press as an unofficial arm of the American empire, but they stand out because they were exceptions to the general rule of passivity at best and toadyism at worst.  

            "If you don't read the newspapers, you're uninformed. If you do read the newspapers, you're misinformed." -- M. Twain

            by Oliver St John Gogarty on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:45:48 PM PDT

            [ Parent ]

    •  Olden Days of Home Newspaper delivery (4+ / 0-)

      On my short stretch of country road, 30 years ago most everybody got the nearest big city paper. Take that along to 20 years back, every other body. 10 years, 2003, a dozen out of 40 or so.

      Now? count 'em on one hand.

    •  Bias is not the problem (4+ / 0-)

      Honest bias would be a vast improvement.

      Hard-working bias would be a vast improvement. A biased journalist might investigate to dig up facts that fit her bias. If other journalists did the same, we'd have more facts.

      Our problem isn't "bias", it's that the People of the Lie have taken over.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:11:54 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I apologize for having to rush off. (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    philipmerrill, blueoasis

    I am getting ready for work and will be back in about an hour.

    "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

    by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 08:42:10 AM PDT

  •  who is paying the freight? (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, goodpractice

    todays 'socalled journos' are paid to say what they are told. it's all opinion and any opinion seems to be taken with the same seriousness regardless.
    journos used to report the news or what was said by who, and yes depending on the source it may have a slight slant. it was up to the consumer of this to determine for themselves where the truth lay, which was somewhere in the middle.
    today there is just too much noise and near absolute
    zero integrity. it's become infotainment.
    replace politician for journo in the above and the root of the problem is obvious - too much money.

    ummm how do you add a signature?

    by bunkai on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:17:16 AM PDT

    •  Kinda, but there were rules. (4+ / 0-)

      You couldn't report something--it wouldn't be published--until 2 independent and reliable sources told you the same story/fact. It wasn't just "opinion"; there were fact-checkers on payroll, people whose job it was to verify the sources, and writers and editors who cared enough to do so. If a reporter got "taken", that in and of itself became news, because it was so rare. Now we can't even keep up with the lies, deceptions, and outright propaganda that passes for "news."

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:26:27 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Hooray for librarians! (4+ / 0-)

    However, I don't know about the notion of them gatekeeping the avaialbale books as to what is good stuff and what is bad stuff. I might be a library reader wanting access to Beck's book so I can reasearch and debunk some of his points.

    “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

    by Catte Nappe on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:37:43 AM PDT

    •  Absolutely. But would you (4+ / 0-)

      put it in the same physical place as the resources you would need to debunk it? I am not advocating not having trash--and believe me, I would only call fiction/propaganda posing as non-fiction "trash"--in the library; I am saying there has to be a place we can put it so that the unsuspecting reader will know there is at least something different about the books in that section as opposed to those we keep in the more traditional history or political science sections.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 09:45:24 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I think it all has to be together (1+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        lotlizard

        You and I might have the same perception of what is trash and what is treasure, but what if some other librarian things David Barton is the the bees knees, and Chris Rodda sucks?  Who gets to define the contents of the "trash shelf"?

        “Texas is a so-called red state, but you’ve got 10 million Democrats here in Texas. And …, there are a whole lot of people here in Texas who need us, and who need us to fight for them.” President Obama

        by Catte Nappe on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:28:46 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Peer review. Like we do for most other (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          marina, blueoasis

          things. What, you think we actually get to read anything?

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:42:12 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  But it isn't perception, which is my point. (3+ / 0-)

          It's verifiable that the things in the books I'm talking about are false. That's how we know they are false, after all. We cannot verify the claims, or we can demonstrate that they are actually inaccurate based on evidence that exists here in the real world.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 10:44:06 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Academic treatment vs opinion about the subject (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryduck, RiveroftheWest

        Would it be possible to categorize both by subject and authors' processes?  An academic treatment of a historical subject is necessarily different from that provided by an opinion writer.  So Zinn and Michael Fellman (Citizen Sherman, just randomly chosen from my bookshelf) go on one part of the shelf, and O'Reilly, Beck, and Clinton's My Life go on another.  

        •  Not possible in Dewey (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          salmo, RiveroftheWest

          to that specific a degree, and not by our cataloger at all for this reason. A colleague of mine had a discussion a while back with the cataloger on a similar topic, and my colleague made his/my point quite succinctly by asking the cataloger: "We don't put books about the Easter Bunny in [the section for rabbits], do we?" Cue crickets from Admin . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:31:36 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

  •  Hmmm. (6+ / 0-)

    I am teaching a LIS 101 class in the fall at my school.  It is part of a 12-hour cohort on global warming.  As a librarian, I am teaching the media aspect of it.  Here are some articles I have found to be useful in explaining the contemporary media landscape:

    Polarized Political Communication, Oppositional
    Media Hostility, and Selective Exposure
    by
    Kevin Arceneaux Temple University
    Martin Johnson University of California-Riverside
    Chad Murphy University of Mary Washington

    The Anatomy of Denial:  Why the Truth Doesn't Always Win
    by Christie Aschwanden

    Objectivity Does Not Mean Neutrality:  The Danger of False Equivalency in the Media
    by
    David Gutman

  •  Follow the money. (7+ / 0-)
    We live in a society in which nearly every moment of human attention is exposed to the game plans of spin doctors, image managers, pitchmen, communications consultants, public information officers and public relations specialists...
     - Stuart Ewen
    The money is in manipulating consumers to buy stuff.

    I think you're really lamenting the death of the citizen - socially conscious members of "we the people" who took their citizenship seriously - having been replaced by self-involved, infantile creatures called "consumers" who are primarily concerned with shopping for their next fix.

    muddy water can best be cleared by leaving it alone

    by veritas curat on Wed May 08, 2013 at 12:07:04 PM PDT

    •  Didn't get that way by accident, either. (0+ / 0-)

      The equation of capitalism and democracy has a history that neatly parallels what happened "to" journalism and the media.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:06:50 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  my blogroll's 1-13 (not 14-16) (5+ / 0-)

    http://www.dailykos.com/...

    My search for objectivity is never ending, but it mostly involves tracking favorite blogs -- and an ultra-conventional assortment at that! Daily Kos is the only one I follow repeatedly, multiple times a day, although I've been checking in with HuffPo and Talking Points Memo more frequently than I used to. Eschaton is a constant favorite. A standard late-afternoon perusal is the wonderful HuffPo Hill email newsletter about Congress and fatster's roundup on FDL News. Krugman('s blog), Emptywheel and Glenn Greenwald are regular visits as well as Digby and Juan Cole. I follow tech and entertainment news closely for my work so I also get a lot of stuff by email for that, notably PaidContent and TheHill's emails and Politico's Morning Tech. I also look over Yahoo News daily.

    I'm never surprised when the real reporting comes from traditional media, but I prefer to be directed to it there (rather than LOOK FOR IT there). I'm not satisfied with what I do learn, objectively, about the world, and I follow many more misc. sources sporadically like Alternet and TruthDig.

  •  I'm glad to have the opinion of a "librarian" (3+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    goodpractice, dadadata, leema

    If you would like to have the opinion of a "journalist," which is a fancy word for a reporter, you might want to actually consult one, which would be me.

    There is no lack of interest in thorough, objective reporting amongst folks who write such things. What you have been listening to are right-wing radio hosts and people who do not fathom what journalism actually is.

    Every week I go to county commission meetings and do the real grunt work of what reporters all over the country do. 'We don't get paid well. We have to sit through long, boring meetings. But if we don't go to those meetings your elected representatives will screw you up and down the wall and steal all your money.  Most folks have no idea how close they are living to tinpot dictatorships except for the fact that in the audience of these commission meetings are people who scribble, scribble, scribble every rancid fact about what they are doing for the edification of the very few people who read what they write.

    We don't do it for fame, or glory, or even because of a sense of mission. We do it because it is a job, and obviously from you a pretty thankless job.

    so, I am glad you have an opinion about my job.  Here's my opinion about yours:  Most librarians are surly and most things you used to use a library for are available on the internet, so libraries should be burned and librarians fed to lions on pay-per-view.

    •  Stop mincing words. What do you really think? (0+ / 0-)
      Most librarians are surly and most things you used to use a library for are available on the internet, so libraries should be burned and librarians fed to lions on pay-per-view.

      We're all pretty strange one way or another; some of us just hide it better. "Normal" is a dryer setting.

      by david78209 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 01:48:01 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  That you took this personally (4+ / 0-)

      makes no sense to me, since I didn't condemn all modern journalists as being soulless sellouts, or whatever you think I did to you. Are you making stuff up for publication? If not, then your defensiveness was activated in sympathy for those who do. Are you defending writers like Glenn Beck or Charles Krauthammer because what you do is good reporting? Of course I'm talking about the right-wing pundits--that's who is getting listened to and read! If nobody paid attention to them, we wouldn't be in the trouble we are in. I'm sorry that you didn't get that from my diary.
      Do you deny that there is a lack of reliability for political coverage in the major dailies and weeklies, and that misinformation is being spread by those posing as journalists? Do you deny that a lot of harm is being done because reporters and editors have either given up trying to present research to their audience, or have had that work stripped out of their articles for publication? I read a lot of transcribing, but not a lot of in-depth analysis--or even cursory fact-checking--provided by major news outlets on major stories. DKos is chock full of diaries and posts on a daily basis about the lack of "reporting" that goes on in the name of journalism these days.
      Thank you for doing good work, but your profession is not well. That you don't get paid well for doing good work is another symptom of that illness.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:26:48 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Define your terms. (0+ / 0-)

        "Journalist" covers a huge range.

        Do you mean Bloviator? Opinion Writer?

        Reporter? Print? Weekly? Daily? Other? Magazine?

        Online? Both? Broadcast? Radio, or TV?

        Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

        by dadadata on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:54:31 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Yes. (0+ / 0-)

          Anyone "reporting" or commenting on current events, because almost everyone alive today grew up in a country where the former mindset of news reportage had died out in favor of the goal, at least, of factual news gathering.

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:17:45 PM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  Too broad to have a meaningful discussion. (0+ / 0-)

            Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

            by dadadata on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:12:32 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  Says you. I think it reflects instead (1+ / 0-)
              Recommended by:
              sturunner

              the problem completely. Nobody, regardless of media outlet, is trying to provide us with well-researched and sourced reportage (with the exceptions as noted by everyone here.)

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:22:18 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Nobody except somebody. Fine logic. (0+ / 0-)

                Here's the problem. You fingered "journalists" but not corporate raiders, absentee owners, conglomerates, investment bankers.

                There are people who would try, I'm quite sure, but for the structure which has been allowed to develop.

                Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

                by dadadata on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:30:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

                •  I do not dispute your last statement. (0+ / 0-)

                  If you want to write a diary about raiders, owners, and others, go for it. I am not talking about the front end of that business, but how it ends up looking from the reader's side.

                  And btw, I have a hard time believing you don't know what I meant by "nobody with exceptions"; you just seem to want to be snide here . . .

                  "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

                  by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 04:30:47 PM PDT

                  [ Parent ]

                  •  I mean there are many factors which are (0+ / 0-)

                    Driving what you observe; there are many different news sources, some of which are your exceptions; and in the end you're going after "journalists" as if every news outlet was a workers' collective or an Occupy project. They ain't.

                    There are a lot of underpaid, under appreciated, talented and dedicated people who are "reporters" or "journalists."

                    So the generalization irks me and the faulty logic, that too.

                    We need a ProPublica in every state, but we're not getting them. Why? There's an interesting question.

                    Kos is best when people focus on the micro side of these issues.

                    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

                    by dadadata on Fri May 10, 2013 at 05:08:04 PM PDT

                    [ Parent ]

    •  Okay, Mr. Journalist, savior of my tinpot housing (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryduck, RiveroftheWest

      What exactly did you find wrong about the diarist's comments?

      Do you think journalism in this country is doing a satisfactory job?  Do you actually watch what passes for news today?  Do you feel that journalist are given the freedom to select the stories they want to present to major audiences?  Do you feel that there is undue corporate influence in the stories that we see and hear?

      Do you believe that honesty is still the most valued asset in a reporter's skill set?

      I see lies, misrepresentations and misdirection in the news today.  I see major stories avoided and trivial persuits as hot commodities.  I see reporters being fired in Florida because they will not report lies and every major news outlet supporting the defendent (Fox News) in saying that there are not laws against lying.  I see (so called) journalists coming on the air and being extrordinarily wrong (all of Fox News, and most of CNN, MSNBC and even NPR) with no repurcussions but others (like Dan Rathers) get nailed to the cross if it doesn't play to the narrative.

      If you are a journalist with integrity, I applaud you.  I wish you great success and the fame and fortune that goes with it.  However, if you can sit here and say you do not see what the diarist has described, I seriously have doubts about your journalistic investigative skills.  

      "Perhaps the sentiments contained in the following pages, are not YET sufficiently fashionable to procure them general favour..."

      by Buckeye Nut Schell on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:31:05 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

    •  The diarist wants work like yours in the library (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      bryduck

      You must have noticed that you are a vanishing breed, and that our society is endangered by the loss.

      Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

      by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:19:56 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  News sources (5+ / 0-)

    Mostly on line--Guardian, Independent in the UK.  DemocracyNow and Free Speech Radio News.  All these would be considered left or left leaning, but they do have a concern for facts and accuracy--and, frankly, truth has a leftist bias these days.  I also read my local newspaper.  Mostly it pushes the agenda of the publisher and therefore sucks, but some news that I wouldn't get anywhere else sneaks through.  At one point I watched CNN to see what crap the Washington and New York establishments were trying to dump on us, but it is just too stupid and boring.  I sometimes watch MSNBC, but there is a lot of airtime for not too much news.

    I'm truly sorry Man's dominion Has broken Nature's social union--Robert Burns

    by Eric Blair on Wed May 08, 2013 at 02:59:14 PM PDT

    •  Thanks for the list; I think (0+ / 0-)

      you put the hammer on the nail of what most of us do to get news--we reach out to the left because we have more regard for fairness in most things, news included.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 03:10:38 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Fish rots from head down. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck

    Thump! Bang. Whack-boing. It's dub!

    by dadadata on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:45:18 PM PDT

    •  Without a doubt. This was a directed (0+ / 0-)

      action. And for a real world purpose--dumb Americans vote ignorantly, and apparently that equals "Republican."

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 04:48:41 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  "Objective" journalism is very modern (3+ / 0-)

    And is pretty much impossible to "do" 100 percent. Would we have wanted Walter Cronkite to refrain from telling us that the Vietnam War was very bad?

    We can all agree, factually, that our constitution doesn't say anything about objective journalism nor about truthfulness in print. And nothing about libraries. Only that a free press (you can print pretty much anything you wish) is vital for a people who must govern themselves. The authors leave it to the consumers of a free press to determine what is truth and not truth, preferably after having sampled from as many sources as possible.

    Libraries play an important, if not constitutional role, in all this. One of the ethical tenants of librarianship (IIRC) is intellectual freedom. Another is stewardship. They play critical roles when it comes to a people who must govern themselves...encourage literacy, critical thinking, and make available a wide variety of viewpoints on various subject matters. Reading matter that expresses a view or promotes fiction as fact is older than the printing press (dare I point to The Good Book?) So long as a good number of sources are provided for the same subject it should be trusted that the more "fictional" non-fiction will either fall by the wayside (no one checks it out) or be retained because of its historical value. If you've ever seen an etiquette book from the 1930s or some of the religious tracts from that period (or even scientific!) you know what I mean. It is of value to our society to collect the opinions of the day so that scholars may study them in the future.

    The job of presenting "facts" falls to the individuals who publicly express themselves. The job of a citizen is to determine what is true from among all the supposed "facts" that are being expressed. IMHO, the job of the librarian is to facilitate the reach of the first and the grasp of the second, not to ensure that the latter only has access to the material they personally find agreeable or "objective."

    Insofar as modern reading material goes...I'd think we would want as many divergent views (fact or fiction) sitting on a shelf, close to each other. It makes it easier to achieve the ideals of citizenship as expressed in our First Amendment.

    While I'm not and have never been a librarian, my mom bred me to be a library fanatic and she allowed me read ANYTHING that I wished, regardless of age (insert funny story here about scaring the crap out of myself by reading the Exorcist when she forbid me to see the movie.) I have read A LOT of rubbish and A LOT of valuable stuff, thanks to libraries. I think that's the way it's supposed to be.

    •  You are espousing the traditional (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Buckeye Nut Schell

      outlook, and I am not saying it's wrong. But there is a distinct difference in availability, tone, and purpose to what's being pushed on the public these days than formerly, imho. When you have all of the major broadcasting companies and publishing houses condoning, if not actively marketing and "placing" what I'm calling "trash history" here, there is a greater potential for drowning out those other voices. Asking our readers to penetrate the endless lies of a Coulter, when her books seem to be so well-researched--especially since we can't direct those readers to all the debunking that is necessary just by having it on the shelves (and in addition, most of that lives only online)--is another order of magnitude more difficult than what is called for by "critical thinking."
      We aren't having a debate between two competing theories of why the Roman Empire fell or what caused the Panic of 1837 on the shelves; we're seeing lies forcefully and professionally represented as truths--that's something different in nature from what we've had before. The John Birch Society's tracts looked amateurish because no major publisher would debase itself to publish their outlandish views. That provided a visceral and obvious clue to the reader as to the contents' real value. Regnery has all the money in the world to craft books that look as respectable as any university press can--more so, even. That has a not-so-subtle effect on readers who have always had to be trained to look through the printed page for answers. Am I not allowed to even the odds when I know an item is completely fact-free? Do I not have an even greater calling to the truth, or at least to authors interested in pursuing truth instead of its opposite?

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:11:28 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  Thought-provoking! Here's a thought you provoked (2+ / 0-)
        Recommended by:
        bryduck, sturunner

        What if the display counter coming into the library was full of books about how to spot misinformation? Or if one of the little courses at the library was about critical thinking?

        Freedom isn't free. Patriots pay taxes.

        by Dogs are fuzzy on Wed May 08, 2013 at 11:24:48 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  That would be awesome. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sturunner, RiveroftheWest

          Who would actually pick those books up, though, or take that class? I'm trying to get to the people that don't even know there is a problem . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:23:34 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  No shortcuts -- higher ideals (0+ / 0-)

        If we believe in our constitution and have faith that it IS the best way to govern ourselves then we should probably trust it even when we are tempted by expediency or ideals to do otherwise. It seems that sometimes the only way to demonstrate our opposition that our system does, in fact, work, is to use it.

        I would support the ACLU even when they defend a neo-nazi's right to free speech (even when that neo nazi is spouting professionally-designed untruths) because it is our higher ideals that allow the real truths to ultimately be known.

        Btw, loved the comment about displays regarding critical thinking. Another one I've seen at local libraries is having QA author sessions. Free expression and free thought...my upbringing taught me that libraries are where it's really at. And I, personally, want to see what tripe my enemies are dishing out without having to personally buy their books.

  •  Mass media is dead. (0+ / 0-)

    Mass media is dead.
    It threw itself away for free(dumb) … and along with it journalism. But even before this journalism has been on a long-term decline called hackism…

  •  Even individuals have their failings (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, salmo

    Krugman for instance is great on economics, not as good outside his area of expertise.

    For, "the news" I glance at google, but I want to start reading the BBC regularly, they are still pretty good.

    A general idea is all we can get anyway. If you take a subject that you are very knowledgeable about you will always be disappointed to read about it in the media. Journalists are generalists, they miss a lot.

    What kills me is to read a front page story that is opinion with many misleading "facts". It's so easy to do now. No money for editors.

    Often here I just go to the links if it sounds interesting.

    I almost forgot. I like TPM, been reading Josh since early 01. He seems much less, well, emotional.

    How big is your personal carbon footprint?

    by ban nock on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:05:09 PM PDT

  •  I've learned that the term, fair & balanced, means (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck

    absolutely nothing.    Fact vs fiction is not fair & balanced.

    “... there is no shame in not knowing. The problem arises when irrational thought and attendant behavior fill the vacuum left by ignorance.” ― Neil deGrasse Tyson, The Sky Is Not the Limit: Adventures of an Urban Astrophysicist

    by leema on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:21:07 PM PDT

    •  Bingo. Exactly. (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      leema

      I'm sure most of you are asking, "Why didn't bryduck just say that?"
      ; )

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Wed May 08, 2013 at 05:23:29 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  In the movie Network there is a reference to.. (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck

    the News division losing money for the corporation, nowadays i feel as though the News is used to make money. Although the news no longer reports the News, it is entertainment to make money for the Corporation. Also I check out NHK World for some world news and watch some on Saturdays. What is also cool about watching NHK is that the tone is more boring!!?? Not Sensationalistic.. The one show i watch on Saturday is Cool Japan for two reasons 1. There is some lost in translation with the show which makes it funny  2.The topics always vary and can be quite interesting!!

    America, We blow stuff up!!

    by IndyinDelaware on Wed May 08, 2013 at 06:06:01 PM PDT

  •  Much of American journalism begins w/the NYT (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, sturunner

    Most daily papers throughout the country subscribe to their content.  The LAT still runs some good news articles, but it isn't the paper it was 35 years ago.

    I get a lot of my news from the Guardian.  For news about the Pacific Northwest, I go to Seattle's Post Intelligencer.  Oregon's daily is worthy of lining a hamster cage only.  I touch bases with the Miami Herald, because it has good insights into Latin America and its intersection with the USA.  Rocky Mountain News is an independent paper that covers the West, and does exemplary reportage on all things Western, as well as showcasing writers.  

    For Israeli news, I go to Ha'aretz.  For environmental news and food issues, my go to source is The Grist.  The Grist is really a wonderful news site.

    _"Love is the rosebud of an hour; Friendship the everlasting flower."_ Brook Boothby

    by Keith930 on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:03:48 PM PDT

  •  In 1974, Reagan repealed TRUTH IN Reporting ACt (0+ / 0-)

    and the FCC has done nothing to protect the american media from corporate monopoly. The Founders knew that freedom of the Press was essential to maintenance of democracy. That is why the 4th estate does not have to reveal its sources. And it has other constitutional protections. Rupert Murdoch is a corporate stooge masking as a jounalist. He was born in Australia and his father was a real journalist. He has betrayed everything his father valued and he has betrayed his oath as a US citizen. He should be deported for treason.
    I am deeply disturbed that the FCC doesnt have nerve in its being protecting the public from such MEDIOCRE dishonest moguls who would destroy democracy to enrich a few and gain power.
    Journalism isnt dead, its just in a heap of MUD. Dont forget the reporters who are dying covering the war and there are HONEST reporters, journalists and media commentators still striving to tell the truth. The GOP with all its power cannot win on the arguments so they propagandize and demonize to shape peoples opinions pretty much what most dictators strive for in national media. Me, I'll watch MSNBC, CBS for my news. We dont have a WALTER cronkite now, but we do have Scott Pelley, Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell. We still have Paul Krugman and David Cay Johnston economists that speak truth and of course Ezra Klein, Ari Melcher, Alex Wagner. Journalism is not dead, but it is in real trouble.
    Demand the FCC stop the spread of media mkt monopolies.
    Demand that congress restore TRUTH IN REPORTING ACT.
    Demand that TRUTH be restored to national discourse on matters of politics and war.

    An EGG is not a person, A corporation is not a person!

    by CarmanK on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:12:57 PM PDT

  •  Reagan repealed the TRUTH IN REPORTING ACt-1974 (0+ / 0-)

    and the FCC has done nothing to protect the american media from corporate monopoly. The Founders knew that freedom of the Press was essential to maintenance of democracy. That is why the 4th estate does not have to reveal its sources. And it has other constitutional protections. Rupert Murdoch is a corporate stooge masking as a jounalist. He was born in Australia and his father was a real journalist. He has betrayed everything his father valued and he has betrayed his oath as a US citizen. He should be deported for treason.
    I am deeply disturbed that the FCC doesnt have nerve in its being protecting the public from such MEDIOCRE dishonest moguls who would destroy democracy to enrich a few and gain power.
    Journalism isnt dead, its just in a heap of MUD. Dont forget the reporters who are dying covering the war and there are HONEST reporters, journalists and media commentators still striving to tell the truth. The GOP with all its power cannot win on the arguments so they propagandize and demonize to shape peoples opinions pretty much what most dictators strive for in national media. Me, I'll watch MSNBC, CBS for my news. We dont have a WALTER cronkite now, but we do have Scott Pelley, Andrea Mitchell, Rachel Maddow, Chris Hayes and Lawrence O'Donnell. We still have Paul Krugman and David Cay Johnston economists that speak truth and of course Ezra Klein, Ari Melcher, Alex Wagner. Journalism is not dead, but it is in real trouble.
    Demand the FCC stop the spread of media mkt monopolies.
    Demand that congress restore TRUTH IN REPORTING ACT.
    Demand that TRUTH be restored to national discourse on matters of politics and war.

    An EGG is not a person, A corporation is not a person!

    by CarmanK on Wed May 08, 2013 at 07:14:34 PM PDT

  •  Google News, the Other News Editions (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sturunner

    link at the bottom of the page will open a portal on news outlets from everywhere on the planet, you can get lost in them; the erudite internationalist blog 3 Quarks Daily; public radio; Internet radio (iPhone has an app called Play Radio that will give you access to stations from all over, for free, it's wonderful and the music is beyond that); and Harper's. And I keep linking out from that little bunch.  Takes up a lot of time and keeps me from caving to the more active vices, but as a journalism professor whose area used to be print, I mainline this stuff.

  •  I get my news from... (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    sturunner

    ...other people posting on Facebook.

  •  Newsweek was readable, cover to cover (3+ / 0-)

    back in the early, mid 1970s' ~ remember how "fortnight" was somewhere in there every week? A quirky touch I got a kick out of.

    And 1982 when THE Chicago Sun-Times was bought by the evil Australian and The Chicago Tribune was absolutely infused with excellence... which within a few years was diluted to Yuppie drivelance, just like Newsweek?

    [ah, but not Royko, a Sun-Times walkout, always true!]

    Nota bene: the demise of editorial "cartoonists"
    ~at least in terms of numbers and getting paid.

  •  Usually I go to the original sources (4+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    lotlizard, bryduck, sturunner, LillithMc

    It depends on what you are trying to find out the truth about, but having discovered that most textbooks and standard reference works are wrong on very basic facts, I would never use a journal to provide unbiased reports.

    Rachel Maddow does a pretty good job but even she doesn't know everything.

    Wikipedia is a crime against nature. Its edited by special interests that specifically reject original research and yet I have found original research is the only way to be certain you are getting good information.

    Libraries are full of information, data you can work with, but you have to assume going in that most of it is going to be obsolete, wrong, incorrect and in desperate need of fact checking.

    For me the old standard that if you want something done right you have to do it yourself applies.

    Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

    by rktect on Thu May 09, 2013 at 02:05:14 AM PDT

    •  1/2 right, imho. On non-controversial topics, (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LillithMc

      I think Wikipedia is a boon without parallel in human history; I use it all the time professionally. For "hot" topics, of course, you are right.
      Their bet was that there are more people in the world that care about getting it "right" than want to disseminate bad info, and I think they can cash that bet in. Think about all the good stuff that's in there compared to the extremely small number of bad . . .

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:29:35 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  rktect is exactly right. (0+ / 0-)

        WP is CONTROLLED by special interests on most really important topics.

        Employees of RCC Cardinals & Bishops stop at nothing to minimize their atrocities against children.

        Hindutva advocates whitewash their genocidal massacres against Muslims & Christians in India.

        Buddhist racists sanitize their similar assaults on Muslims & Hindus in Sri Lanka, Thailand, & now, Burma.  (I'm buddhist.  .  .  .)

        It's a better World Book on noncontroversial matters.

        A little knowledge is a dangerous thing.

        Propaganda starts wars, & genocides.

        Good Diary on a critical Topic.

        Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world..-- Jack Layton

        by sturunner on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:33:43 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Links, please? (0+ / 0-)

          Not a dis or a disbelief, but for those kinds of assertions, I'd like some evidence . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:42:07 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

          •  For oblivious reasons, I no longer do WP. (0+ / 0-)

            I have a meeting this wknd w/them.

            They need to moderate topics like those I mentioned.

            On child sexual assault/rape, they have helped to  legitimize pedophilia.  Should folks that advocate genocide or child rape have "standing?"

            Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world..-- Jack Layton

            by sturunner on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:05:08 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  What I mean by control is the time & money to (0+ / 0-)

              overwhelm their adversaries.

              Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world..-- Jack Layton

              by sturunner on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:08:42 AM PDT

              [ Parent ]

          •  I gave a couple of specific examples (0+ / 0-)

            In this diary under the heading "Historical "evidence" can often be expert opinion".

            To add a few more, look at the talk and archives on most threads having anything to do with religion or ancient history, standards of measure and architectural proportion.

            sturunner mentioned some of the problems with religions as special interests, but when it comes to Palestinians and Israelies or any other pair of warring ethnic groups to include bias between the left and right on articles about the Constitution and politics of the United States, the economy, climate change, anything Obama has had anything to do with there is constant reverting and rewriting.

            Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

            by rktect on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:43:42 AM PDT

            [ Parent ]

            •  I meant "links to sources (0+ / 0-)

              that (irony alert!) report on Wikipedia itself being 'controlled' by special interests." I know individual articles can/will be "hacked" by special interests, but I have never heard that Wikipedia allows/condones/is paid off by them. My experience is that when an article gets too "hot", the editors freeze it until it cools down . . .

              "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

              by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 12:33:55 PM PDT

              [ Parent ]

              •  Wikipedia editors are the special interests (0+ / 0-)

                and they don't cool articles off so much as they revert the corrections they don't agree with. In some cases they go through and hunt out all references to whatever they think may be heretical to their point of view and remove it.

                They often go so far as to remove citations to published sources they don't happen to agree with as for example Herodotus Book II chapter 6 which categorically refutes the idea that Eratosthenes was the first to determine the circumference of the earth, or the accurate translation of the Merenptah stele in which the actual subject is an incursion by Libyans and Sea Peoples rather than a mention of Israel, or articles suggesting the IPCC is conservative in its scenarios for climate change, global warming and rising sea levels, or in American politics fact checking of right wing conspiracy theories.

                Live Free or Die --- Investigate, Incarcerate

                by rktect on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:20:28 PM PDT

                [ Parent ]

  •  someone somewhere in the future will wonder what (0+ / 0-)

    the summer of 2007 and the campaigns of 2008 were really like and it's only fair that they should have to read the hard-copy versions. After all,
    "Going Rogue is the #1 New York Times bestselling memoir from Sarah Palin," and then again there was that other Politician, but the only original source to get it right at the time was the National Enquirer.
         At that time I had met and been personally, publicly dissed by him in our town and had no trouble believing what other minds pathologically needed to deny. I had to stand up for the Enquirer as CORRECT and also as acting like the type of journalists formally known as watchdogs and not the fawning sycophants of political "coverage" today. I was met (by fellow JRN students) with the reaction: "well what do you want us to do? Sit on the floor outside his hotel room doors until he thinks it's safe to sneak out at 3 a.m.?"
        Ummm, yeah...Whatever happened to Harriet the Spy?

    •  Yeah, it is bizarre that the Enquirer (2+ / 0-)

      sometimes gets it "righter" than anybody else. A friend of mine from days gone by used to be in a "Celebrity Death Pool", where there would be a draft, you'd get 100-age at death points for all your picks that died that year--real macabre. He used the Enquirer to guide his picking; he won every year.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:01:31 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  Noam Chomsky and Howard Zinn would (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck

    disagree.

    I admit that journalistic integrity was far stonger pre-'92, when the Arkansas Project launched, the right-wing echo chamber gained critical mass, and corporate media consolidation broke the editorial integrity barrier--although there was that Ollie North media glorification thing--but it was always tethered to some degree to what was acceptable to the vested interests and protectors of mainstream norms, at least via advertising dollars, if not other forms of "influence."

    Zinn's "A People's History of the United States" and Chomsky's "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media," among others (it was a constant theme of his), do a stellar job of demonstrating what was lacking, why and how.

    From here on out, no one can escape the havoc wrought by the unmitigated Class, Climate and Terror Wars.

    by Words In Action on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:40:20 AM PDT

  •  The Tubes (1+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck

    When I want news, I go to the Internet, where I can select what I want. That would be:

    Current TV (even though they've lost a lot of gusto lately)
    MSNBC
    DailyKos
    The Majority Report
    The Thom Hartmann Program (in its various forms)
    The Best of the Left
    Ring of Fire
    Comedy Central
    Real Time with Bill Maher

    and, very, very occasionally, the Huffington Post.

    Of course, there's Free Speech TV, which carries a number of these and is available on a lot of cable/satellite providers.

    I prefer to get it from the Internet, and what I can't get there conveniently, I scoop up from our DVR.

    •  How many are freely available/ (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      Liberal Thinking

      how did you know to go there/how much time do you require to sift through it all? All of these present problems to the average citizen nowadays. Thank you for your list!

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 08:03:50 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  RSS, etc. nt (0+ / 0-)

        Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world..-- Jack Layton

        by sturunner on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:04:44 AM PDT

        [ Parent ]

        •  Oh, as far as I know, all are free, if that's ur ? (0+ / 0-)

          nt

          Love is better than anger. Hope is better than fear. Optimism is better than despair. So let us be loving, hopeful and optimistic. And we'll change the world..-- Jack Layton

          by sturunner on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:06:35 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

        •  Only helps those with access to internet. (2+ / 0-)
          Recommended by:
          sturunner, Liberal Thinking

          Obviously I know that libraries offer free access, but at my library, only for 2 hours a day. I don't think that's enough time to do this amount of work, unless that's all the work one does with his/her internet time . . .

          "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

          by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:07:47 AM PDT

          [ Parent ]

      •  Best of the Left (0+ / 0-)

        Jay!'s Best of the Left is a great place to start because he features, well, the best of the left programming on radio and TV. So, you can start there.

        And then, of course, Daily Kos frequently highlights clips from great shows.

        I particularly like Up and All In on MSNBC. Chris Hayes has done an excellent job of bringing in meaningful discussion. It's always quality stuff, and he doesn't get dragged into the immediate controversies as much as the rest of TV.

        But, frankly, we have a satellite provider and I find a lot of shows that way. I just don't usually watch them that way directly because I'm not home all that much. So, I frequently get the shows from their Internet websites or watch them with my girlfriend over Facetime off the DVR.

        Ah, modern life!

      •  Advocacy (0+ / 0-)

        This is why we need the federal government to step in and take over the last mile. Really, the last mile of broadband connection is a natural monopoly, just like the train tracks, and it should be public and freely available to everyone.

        I think we should re-nationalize the post office and give it a mandate to have a presence within reasonable travel of every person in the country. It should be given the task of building at least a 100 MB connection to each home that doesn't have one or managing the ones that are there. This will make information available to everyone on a relatively equal basis. It needs to come with a broad guarantee of privacy: no deep packet searches. Just deliver the mail, er, packet to where it's going.

        However, to the extent you can get an Internet connection, most of this content is free, although it may be begging for a contribution. (Yes, I'm a paid subscriber to most of the items on my list.)

  •  News in 3-D (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, sturunner

    Beginning with the concept that all mass media is corrupted by corporate ownership, use what they produce and comment against the right-wing megaphone.  If the subject is important, go to sources with google.  Use international news sources.  Be a megaphone yourself.  We have some great writers at DK including Meteor Blades who graced this diary with his appearance.  Anything from MB. Hunter or other favorites gets attention from me.  As Rachel Maddow says often, don't they know we can google their lies?

    •  It's not that they don't know. (2+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      sturunner, LillithMc

      It's that they know it won't matter if/when we do. Mark Twain got it right:

      A lie can travel halfway around the world while the truth is putting on its shoes.

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 09:47:47 AM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  I was a newspaper reporter (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, RiveroftheWest

    My dad was a newspaper reporter.  My niece was a newspaper reporter for a decade.  We were newspaper reporters, not journalists.  We wrote for newspapers, not journals.

    Newspapers started closing in the 1970s and that was the beginning of the end for honest news.  The end of muilti-newspaper towns killed real newspaper reporting, when papers didn't have to worry about getting scooped by the other paper.

     Watergate helped spark a revival of real newspaper reporting, and when the Investigative Reporters and Editors association formed and went after the killers of Dan Bolles in Arizona.

     There are still some cadres of real newspaper reporters in IRE, and the Center for Investigative Reporting,  but too many newspaper reporters don't have newspapers anymore.

    Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

    by 6412093 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 10:50:13 AM PDT

    •  Wait, a reporter that (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      RiveroftheWest

      isn't flaming me? (See Gary7 above.) I'm not just a jerk who doesn't know what he's seeing/reading?
      (Sorry to unload like that on you; thanks for joining in.)
      I'm surprised to hear about Watergate articles being a revival of journalism; I always thought that was the norm (until later.)

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 12:37:45 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

      •  I read the Gary7 comments. (0+ / 0-)

        Having been to many county meetings myself, I would also get cranky if I felt someone claimed no one was performing  that important chore of watchdogging the daily grind of local government.

        Taking a local example, my area newspaper heavily covered the local government's decision-making to lure the Nike expansion to the local town with an "Enterprise (tax abatement) Zone,"  and supported it editorially.

        Too bad there wasn't another paper around to question whether Nike deserved yet another tax break at all, especially when the school district just laid off 300 teachers.

        Too bad there wasn't an editor telling the local version of Gary7 to work on that story for a few more days, about the angle of whether Enterprise Zones are helping or hurting local government, instead of just dispatching Gary7 to cover the next zoning appeals board hearing.

        Orly, it isn't evidence just because you downloaded it from the internet.

        by 6412093 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:28:07 PM PDT

        [ Parent ]

  •  Infotainment (2+ / 0-)
    Recommended by:
    bryduck, LillithMc

    Those of us with a functioning brain and a conscience need to stand up and scream the truth that the scourge of Capitalism has eroded all sense of decency in journalism today. We've allowed corporate purveyors of pathetic propaganda to put a bounty on integrity and sell advertisements while we watch the downfall of civilization in a state of receptive unawareness. Libraries have always been depositories of knowledge. They shouldn't be filled with putrid bile by paid mouthpieces trying to push an agenda of servile conformity.

    Honor is not a reward. Trust is not a commodity.

    by ashiftinconsciousness on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:15:42 PM PDT

    •  Thank you! (1+ / 0-)
      Recommended by:
      LillithMc

      I think you may be the first person commenting that actually agreed with me!
      : )
      (Not that I've been receiving more than a couple flames, but there've been more "Libraries are great the way they are" than "Right on!" responses, seemingly . . .)

      "Lone catch of the moon, the roots of the sigh of an idea there will be the outcome may be why?"--from a spam diary entitled "The Vast World."

      by bryduck on Thu May 09, 2013 at 03:27:44 PM PDT

      [ Parent ]

  •  People say they want the truth (0+ / 0-)

    but what people really want is to be told their biases are completely right and the world is exactly what they believe it is.

    Objective journalism has little space in that paradigm.

    We have just enough religion to make us hate, but not enough to make us love one another. -- Jonathan Swift

    by raptavio on Thu May 09, 2013 at 05:08:12 PM PDT

  •  Necessity is still the mother of invention (0+ / 0-)

    The enemy of journalism has always been commercialism. But it also has an enemy no one has viewed as an enemy until an alternative has come along. And that enemy is linearity. Both commercialism and linearity force editorial exclusions--one to serve the financial interests of the publisher and one to fit things into the bounds of a publication. So, the gold old days of non-partisan media were still far less than ideal. Partisanship is perhaps the final straw which is creating a new necessity. My personal vision going back to before the internet was to answer this call with a new type of journalism which optimizes the ability to delineate meaning, kicks out commercialism, establishes a modernity and culture in which people understand the value they get from paying for content versus paying little or nothing and riding on commercialism's dime. Unfortunately the Internet broke loose in 1995 and dragged all of the shortfalls of commercialism, sensationalism, and linearity in and people now pay less than ever for content filtered and pared down by someone else whose loyalty is the sponsor, not the consumer.

    This all makes for the necessity which is the mother of invention. The only question is will I or someone else find the serendipity to get with funding sources willing to radically depart from the pathetic morass of "free" content in which the sponsor pays. I already know what of value there is that journalism has never done before which will offer clear advantage to a new market. Change journalism by design to something distinctly new that establishes a direction and you begin a new historical age in which the "generation loss" keeping history so "academic" becomes a thing of the past. Why can't journalism go immediately into history? Who says where the barrier is? It has traditionally had to do with the limits of paper or the linearity of radio and television and the intrusion of commercialism and sensationalism which has distanced relevant bit of information from each other--requiring major effort after the fact to turn into academic (rather than dynamic) history.  There are certain movements excluded from commercial media entirely which if journalized with the mission to keep the information from suffering the traditional generation loss and passage of time, to me this places the horse of motivation before the cart of learning. No more "surfing" or "browsing" or casual acceptance of defeat with regard to accomplish a knowledge objective. There is a place for history of commercial institutions in this kind of journalism, but no place for mixing the sale of wares. No exceptions. Journalism is not dead. It needs a reinvention because there's just too much self-serving sensationalist crap camouflaging useful direction.

    "Education Is Not the Filling of a Pail, But the Lighting of a Fire" W.B. Yeats

    by RareBird0 on Thu May 09, 2013 at 06:00:29 PM PDT

  •  talk radio allows them to create their own facts (0+ / 0-)

    and rewrite history through unchallenged nation-wide repetition. beck's book slides into that alternate reality, surrounded by others commissioned by think tanks and given away for free.

    real journalism is having a hard time keeping up and americans are allowing it to happen because they're ignoring RW radio, mainly because there is no written record to read.

    by the time they read it it's 'fact' by volume and repetition, laid out as a smorgasbord of prechewed bullshit cooked up and sold by the 1%'s think tanks, ready for today's lazy high paid country club journalists and politicians to pick through.

    This is a list of 76 universities for Rush Limbaugh that endorse global warming denial, racism, sexism, and GOP lies by broadcasting sports on over 170 Limbaugh radio stations.

    by certainot on Thu May 09, 2013 at 07:56:38 PM PDT

  •  Other for me (0+ / 0-)

    For most world news BBC
    Mideast news aljazeera.com
    American politics Daily Show Cobert Report and Daily Kos
    Local news I go to the paper and tv websites.
    Science news sciencedaily.com jpl.nasa.gov, all kinds of links to earthy & spacey stuff there.

Subscribe or Donate to support Daily Kos.

Click here for the mobile view of the site