Wednesday, October 25, 2006

The Decline and Fall of the Old Media

Morning after morning, for years now, I have opened my morning newspaper with dread. The Left Wing propaganda, which saturates its contents, plays havoc with the digestion of my breakfast. My blood pressure consistently spikes, at inhuman readings, as I peruse their editorial page(s). The liberal tripe, within their publication, stokes the fires of conservatism and solidifies my belief that only conservatives live in the real world, not the dream-like Utopia of the Left.

I usually wind-up pushing back the paper, in disgust, and heading straight for the computer and the Internet. At least there, I will find competing opinions, from both the left and the right, of American politics.

My part of the country (The Southeastern US) is still in the throws of re-inventing itself. This used to be farm country with fields of grain, and tobacco, along side our highways stretching from the ditch bank, flanking each side of the thoroughfare, to the distant horizon, in both directions.


No longer.


The main cash crop has been determined to be “politically incorrect” and families who have depended on it’s selling price to feed, cloth, and educate their little ones have left the farm, and in many cases, the entire state, in a search for employment.


Our state is controlled by a handful of political hacks that wield their power over the state as a medieval landowner would his serfs. The entire state has become”serfdom”.


Oh, but why do the residents condone such a system, you may ask. Because, dear reader, they don’t know it exists. And those that do are either powerless to do anything about it, or, are somehow, connected to the cabal which hold the reins of power.

The same clique controls the state’s university system with liberal theory being taught throughout. Our great university is referred to as the “Vatican of Liberalism”.


The press, for the most part, acts as the mouthpiece of the hacks who control the state.


The major publications in the state are liberal. If accused of it... they will deny it profusely, and continue to publish their liberal news and views as though there is no tomorrow.

I have concluded that the newspapers have come to believe their own propaganda… that they are not biased. How else can one explain their continued practice of unashamedly slanting stories so that the political left comes through as the “good guy”. Yet, the majority of the people of the state are conservative. The people of North Carolina voted for Bush, over Kerry/Edwards, even though Edwards is a long time resident of the state.


My state is, far and away, a conservative state. Can you imagine how well a conservative newspaper would fare in this state? Even a regional daily, conservative publication, would drain the subscribers of the liberal papers in a few years.


But why stop with a conservative publication in a single state? Why not have a national conservative newspaper? Fox News Channel has proven conservatives are out here and are willing to support a conservative news organization.


But, then, newspapers are the “Old” Media right? Yep! Nobody wants to put money into anything, which is built on the Old Media. Well, small town weeklies seem to be hanging on. But theirs is usually community news, and obits, and wedding pictures, and such. Seldom does really hard news mar the print of their headlines. I expect they will outlive the regional papers.

The major publications are suffering. Subscriptions are way down. Why? Not much of a question, really. Folks are turning to the Internet for their news. I can instruct a search engine to pull up all conservative news outlets and then I can take my pick. I can read the news without having a temper tantrum, or a stroke! That alone is priceless.

There really is such a thing as balance in news reporting. Very few actually practice it, but it is a trait much admired by consumers of news.


It’s a shame that fine publications can’t recognize their own salvation lies in the practice of “balance” in their publications.

They continue to publish, and broadcast, with their own biases, front and center, while they remain blind to them. At least that is the conclusion we are asked to draw, because we know they surely do not include bias in their reporting. We know this… because they have told us. And yet, they continue to produce news products which seem intent on impressing their brothers and sisters in the same media, and in the process, actually offer nothing of substance, or use, to their consuming public.


And they wonder why their ratings are down and their subscriptions are down???


Longstreet

4 comments:

  1. The press should have no political affiliations at all. As soon as it does it becomes propaganda, and that goes for everyone. The press's main concern should be the reporting of fact not opinion, truth not spin.

    In the end why let it bother you? If you know the bias is there then you can read between the lines sufficiently to glean the facts of a story (unless it is a fabrication, which is another problem entirely. Both sides are just as guilty of that too)

    The internet is a very dangerous thing if relied upon too much. The ability to select the news you recieve is ultimately destructive. You end up only reading the news you want to. I share almost none of the opinions voiced on this site but I read it so that my view of the world is more balanced. Not everyone will do this, and will stay quite happily in their comfort zone. Reading only what they want to read and knowing only what they've read. This opens them up to being manipulated very easily.
    Bias in mass media (not personal sites which wear their hearts on their sleeves) is a disgrace. But it is by no means restricted to the left.

    ReplyDelete
  2. "The press should have no political affiliations at all. As soon as it does it becomes propaganda, and that goes for everyone. The press's main concern should be the reporting of fact not opinion, truth not spin."
    **********************8

    I couldn't agree more! In a perfect world that's the way the media would be. Unfortunately, The situation on the ground is just the opposite. Even the BBC admitted their bias just days ago. Not that they NEEDED to. We, on this side of the pond, have known it for a very long time.

    When a nation has a press dominated by one bias... as we have in the USA, it is demoralizing as hell, to those of the opposite persuasion.

    In America, our media is nearly entirely left wing. We have one cable news channel, Fox News Channel, to which we flock. The others are the butt of all kinds of jokes.

    I'm a news junkie. When I was still in the broadcasting business, I read seven newspapers a day. Plus, wire reports which were coming in to the station 24 hours a day. I'm a glutton for punishment.

    Today, I surf the world looking for "input". I favor the British and Australian papers. I also keep tabs on the Jerusalem Post.

    The more I think about what you said above... the more I think we agree.

    Thanks for the input!

    Best regards,

    Longstreet

    ReplyDelete
  3. Wha Wadna Fecht for CharlieOctober 25, 2006 at 5:39 PM

    The press should have no political affiliations at all. –
    Unfortunately, they do. The press is a business and will report the news in a way that their readers subscribe to.

    If we take Rupert Murdoch as an example, in the US he has been a friend to the Republican Party and News International owns Fox News, but in the UK his papers (Times, Sunday Times, Sun & News of the World) either abstained in the UK election or supported Labour. Yet in the previous election, The Sun helped the Conservative Party win the 1992 General Election.

    As you point out, the BBC has openly admitted that it is biased. “Executives would let the Bible be thrown into a dustbin on a TV comedy show, but not the Koran, and that they would broadcast an interview with Osama Bin Laden if given the opportunity. Further, it discloses that the BBC's 'diversity tsar', wants Muslim women newsreaders to be allowed to wear veils when on air. Also, it is dominated by homosexuals and people from ethnic minorities, deliberately promotes multiculturalism, is anti-American, anti-countryside and more sensitive to the feelings of Muslims than Christians.” (Daily Mail 21/10/06) In the military we lovingly referred to the BBC as the ‘Baghdad Broadcasting Corporation.’ To add insult to injury, everyone in the UK has to pay to fund this organisation.

    Other news channels / newspapers are also biased. We receive ‘Euronews’ which continually tells us how fantastic the EU is, but forgets to report the wastage and corruption that is rife within. Some papers in the US still portray Irish terrorists as some form of freedom fighters, forgetting that one cannot choose which terrorists are good and which are bad. Recently in Philadelphia there was a ‘memorial’ to remember the 10 convicted IRA criminals who committed suicide by starving themselves to death. The biggest risk to my security is not Islamic terrorism, but is still one of the 14 outlawed terror groups we have here in Northern Ireland.

    The other point I would like to raise is the terms and definitions of words. ‘Liberal’ in the US is different from liberal in the UK and Australia. The Liberal Democratic Party in the UK would be to the left of our current leftist Government, while the Liberal Party of Australia is very much centre-right, and the Liberal Democratic Party of Russia is a far right nationalist party wishing to reform the Soviet Union.

    Regards,

    Wha Wadna Fecht for Charlie

    ReplyDelete
  4. It's always good to hear from you two. (Mandrill and "Charlie") Your comments are always well thought out, reasoned, and always give me pause to think. I must admit that I like that. Even when we disagree, we disagree as gentlemen, and my old southern roots are gratified.

    Best wishes to you both!

    Longstreet

    ReplyDelete