Today my Howard Dean Google Alert notified me about not one, not two, not three, not four, not five, not six, not seven, not eight, but nine sites that recycled the AP story about Joan Jett running in New York as a Howard Dean delegate. Nine sites?! Come on!! Why this story? Excellent question: we'll get to it. But a better question is, what effect does this type of regurgitation have on the press?
I believe it makes the press lazy, and a lazy press is problematic to itself. "The Washington Post reports..."; "The controversy surrounding the story about..."; "Two experts square off in our studios...." No sentence that reflects actual reporting starts like this. 24-hour news networks are products of the trend. They have to report everything first: otherwise, they lose their relevance. So untrue things are reported, and retracted as the facts come out. They have to be entertaining: otherwise, people won't watch (and if you think that's garbage, more people watch Fox News than CNN, and more people watch either of those than PBS). They have to flog stories that are long past their prime, and spend increasing amounts of time reporting on the new technological innovations (available at your local Radio Shack!) in consumer products.
Amazingly, despite all this wasted airtime, a lot of important, relevant, underreported stories are ignored. Why is so little attention being paid to the congressional investigation of the government's role in 9/11? Why is so much attention being paid to the Laci Petersen case? Better yet, why the coverage of the Michael Jackson case? That's not news! We already knew he was a child molester! Imagine the headlines tomorrow: "Ted Kennedy drinks a glass of bourbon!"
At work, I have over 30 American newspapers lined up. Some are specialty papers, like Roll Call, Muslim Journal, and New York Amsterdam News. But the rest all cover the same damn stuff, in the same damn way. Picking up one is just as good as picking up another.
Hey USA Today: why would I want to read your crappy paper when I could just go to the AP site? I'll spend my time reading blogs instead, thanks. Even the bloggers I disagree with are more interesting than you!
Everyone complains about bias in the media. Is there liberal bias? (Yes) Is there conservative bias? (Yes.) But the biggest problem might well be either the lazy bias, or the celebrity obsession. And if you want to combat the public discontent with the media (which abated during the coverage of the 9/11 terrorist attacks only to return to previous levels less than a year after), I'd say these two foibles are good places to start.
Posted by Chris at November 28, 2003 07:47 PM | TrackBackNice.
Posted by: Dana at November 28, 2003 08:38 PMYou hit the proverbial nail on the head, man.
It's indicative of not just the media, but also our society as a whole: we are a bunch of lazy asses who bitch about how things are going rather than get up and DO anything. We are a bunch of armchair quarterbacks in the biggest game in history.
Posted by: Nabil at November 29, 2003 12:15 PMSo... uh... if that's the big problem, then what do you propose we DO about it, Nabil? Are you DOing it? Stop using WE so much... it's irritating. I am not lazy, am I not part of this society? Many people I know are not lazy, including our Brother Root Beer, are they not part of this society? Perhaps I am just too much of an optimist. Maybe I just don't like being called lazy. "we are a bunch of lazy asses who bitch about how things are going rather than get up and DO anything." ... Glad you took the time to stop and bitch... Perhaps you should change your pronouns.
Dave
Posted by: Dave at December 3, 2003 11:03 AMWell, that was out of the blue. Dave, how are you? You never write.
Y'know, I sat down and wrote out this long diatribe about how society is not homogenous, explaining the process of demographics and how the most common traits found in the overall population is what is considered representative of the society, regardless of the many, MANY exceptions.
Was I aware of the irony of bitching about armchair quarterbacks (thus becoming one myself) when I wrote my post? Yes. Did I feel that others who are aware of that irony might at least get a smirk about it? I hoped so, but didn't hold my breath. Did I feel that regardless of the irony, it was nevertheless true as a GENERAL statement about society? Absolutely.
But it really doesn't matter. If you want to take a statement that was nothing more than an agreement with a commentary, and turn it into an accusation, that is your choice. Seems like an awful waste of time, though.
Good Point... Sorry about that, it just rubbed me the wrong way.
Anyways, just so everyone knows, my recent silence was due to lack of internet. As of Tuesday though, I had Bi-directional satillite installed and am now online. YAY!!