Journalism today: a haven for parasites and double-dealers

elprincipe

elprincipe

CAGiversary!
Feedback
60 (100%)
http://www.salon.com/news/opinion/feature/2010/04/16/parasites_in_journalism/index.html

Richard Wolffe, for instance, has appeared on MSNBC as a supposedly objective pundit while also being employed by a business advocacy firm. Likewise, Jeff Birnbaum heads a lobbying and P.R. company while writing a Washington Times column — and a recent one that attacked Democrats for defying industries that pay his company.

Birnbaum, of course, was previously the Washington Post correspondent covering the lobbying industry, and so his career shift also puts him in the last group: the Former Watchdogs.

To understand why these turncoats so threaten journalism, consider not only Birnbaum, but also Stephen Labaton. This New York Times financial reporter just announced he is taking a job with Goldman Sachs — a move that makes you wonder whether Labaton watered down his Times coverage in order to get his new gig.
Click to expand...

And a related article, "Obama skips tradition of free press," might be also interesting.

http://www.suntimes.com/news/otherviews/2168612,CST-EDT-open17a.article

Does anyone feel this is a really bad development? Or that it's okay since we have new media to pick up the slack?
 
Ah sweet, someone else reads Salon on a regular basis like me lol.

Yeah I think Glenn Greenwald is right that we can't rely on the old media figures to do the job. But the ones that do the job aren't given the time of day on TV and that's where you're going to reach a large segment of the pop.
 
I'm not familiar with Birnbaum or his column, but Richard Wolffe is generally introduced (by Keith Olbermann at least) as being a strategist for Public Strategies.

Also, objective pundit? no such thing.

MSNBC doesnt really do news either, nor do they claim to. They are "the place for politics". Its political commentary all day long.

As far as the revolving door, you've just got to be on your guard. I wouldnt count on the "new media" either. You should always be reading up on sources.
 
Last edited by a moderator:
When I clicked on this link, I thought it was going to be about the White House reporters who save scoops for the future books they're writing...
 
[quote name='elprincipe']Or that it's okay since we have new media to pick up the slack?[/QUOTE]

new media is still in an early stage evolutionarily, lacking a lot of structure, meaning, and coherence, but showing promise.

how a genuine and reliable "new media" forms from the muck of web-based information gathering is beyond me - as is also whether or not it will happen in our lifetimes or not.

For evidence of this muck see some of the more delightful posts fatherofcaitlyn brings us from rense.com.
 
[quote name='mykevermin']new media is still in an early stage evolutionarily, lacking a lot of structure, meaning, and coherence, but showing promise.

how a genuine and reliable "new media" forms from the muck of web-based information gathering is beyond me - as is also whether or not it will happen in our lifetimes or not.

For evidence of this muck see some of the more delightful posts fatherofcaitlyn brings us from rense.com.[/QUOTE]

New media is a gigantic Catch-22. It's great that there are thousands of bloggers and others who investigate with their free time to find things out, make connections, focus attention on stories that need more of it, and ensure that the old media can't bury a story (for the most part). OTOH, it's incredibly easy to spread misinformation to an ignorant populace.
 
OTOH, it's incredibly easy to spread misinformation to an ignorant populace.
Click to expand...

See:
Obama's nuclear summit logo = islamic crescent
OR, the reality,
nuclear summit logo = Rutherford-Bohr model for the atom
 
That would require people to look up what the rutherford bohr model is, and most people are far too lazy to do that, it's easier just to believe fox.
 
[quote name='IRHari']See:
Obama's nuclear summit logo = islamic crescent
OR, the reality,
nuclear summit logo = Rutherford-Bohr model for the atom[/QUOTE]

cannon3.JPG


AtomLabeledLarge.gif


I don't see it.
 
Wrong logo and wrong atom FoC - The nuclear security summit logo and specifically the model for hydrogen (one electron).
 
[quote name='mykevermin']new media is still in an early stage evolutionarily, lacking a lot of structure, meaning, and coherence, but showing promise.

how a genuine and reliable "new media" forms from the muck of web-based information gathering is beyond me - as is also whether or not it will happen in our lifetimes or not.

For evidence of this muck see some of the more delightful posts fatherofcaitlyn brings us from rense.com.[/QUOTE]

Has there ever been a person or organization that really just wanted to "give us the news?"

Every single entity is going to come in with there own opinions and bias.

In fact, I am more suspicious of anyone who just out of the blue starts a news blog without an expectation of compensation.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Wrong logo and wrong atom FoC - The nuclear security summit logo and specifically the model for hydrogen (one electron).[/QUOTE]

pk%7Dpml.gif


Here it is..;)
 
The thing is, it's such a simple shape you can find it wherever you want. The nuclear summit logo doesn't even really have the star, it's just a rounded line with a ball on it. It has a crescent shape to it, but really, if they want to go after that they should just declare war on South Carolina - they've been harboring the enemy for centuries apparently.
 
[quote name='SpazX']Wrong logo and wrong atom FoC - The nuclear security summit logo and specifically the model for hydrogen (one electron).[/QUOTE]

Thank god I'm wrong.

For those impaired by google image search, what are the correct images for Big O's nuclear summit and the R-B model?

EDIT: Wait a minute.
http://www.epa.gov/rpdweb00/images/ruthbohr.jpg
ruthbohr.jpg

EPA claims the above image is "Rutherford-Bohr Model".
 
[quote name='Dr Mario Kart']I
MSNBC doesnt really do news either, nor do they claim to. They are "the place for politics". Its political commentary all day long.

As far as the revolving door, you've just got to be on your guard. I wouldnt count on the "new media" either. You should always be reading up on sources.[/QUOTE]


Yeah, to the first I think that's a common mistake many make. They treat commentary shows as journalism and lament the downfall of objective journalism.

Those are opinion shows and are no different than the editorial pages of newspapers--neither should be considered journalism.

The only thing those have to do with the downfall of objective journalism is that there are so many opinion shows that it's less time for real news on the news networks. And those shows get higher ratings so many people are using such programming as their main source of news.

I don't think new media is any panacea either as there's much less accountability their than in professional news media.

IMO, newspapers are still the way to go to stay informed. Especially in the internet age when we can read most every major paper and a gazillion small papers on the internet through their site, sites like Google News which will give links to thousands of articles on each story etc.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
bread's done
Back
Top