Location
- Somewhere in the crusty outer layer of small towns surrounding the warm creamy center that is Oklahoma City.
Site Navigation
Current server time:9/3/2010 2:38:35 PM
Categories
The Daily Browse
Reference Material
Blogs of Note
Non-blog Friend Pages
Archive
|
Friday, February 12, 2010
It seems I'm constantly being asked if I saw this segment or that on some cable or radio show that purports to pass for news these days. When I'm not being asked, I'm being accused of getting all my information from same. The fact is, I haven't seen any "actual news" on TV in at least a decade, and the purpose of radio is to deliver me random samplings of popular music.
Let me be even more clear: I don't give a damn what Rush Limbaugh said. I don't care about Rachel Maddow's latest diatribe. Glenn Beck is a self-described rodeo clown. Keith Olbermann is a pompous windbag. None of these people even remotely represent my point of view, and I came to the conclusion a long time ago that it was a waste of my time to hear theirs.
So when someone asks me, "Did you see that segment on Joy Behar--" NO.
"Did you hear what Hannity--" NO.
"The other day on Oprah--" HELL NO.
This also goes for the internet. No, I did not see what Matt Drudge posted. I do not go to the Daily Kos. Well, once, but I was in college and I was curious...
I get my news from news aggregator sites, namely news.google.com and Fark. Yes, I understand that Fark is a site that intends to lambaste the news by posting all of the non-stories that "the news" wants us to see, but Fark is a much more complete picture of the world than The New York Times, for example. If I want the local news, I check NewsOK.
On the rare occasion I watch television "news", I watch The Daily Show with Jon Stewart, which has every bit as much content (despite being a spoof of the actual news) and is far more entertaining. When I want commentary or perspective, I read Mises.org (for financial/economic analysis) or Reason.com (for everything else).
I enjoy investigative reporting -- not the vague accusation-by-insuation crap that you see on the local channels' "community advocate" segments, but actual detailed facts and rational analysis.
I remember way back in the aftermath of Columbine, when the commentary and arguments went on for months and months, but nobody ever reported what actually happened in detail, because everyone wanted to bang the drum on their own pet cause, if they thought it was in any way served by the incident. It was 6 or 8 months later when a much-maligned magazine quietly published a lengthy, detailed "after-action report" that laid out all the facts -- what weapons were used, the tactical situation including a map of the school and a discussion of the route taken by the attackers, the problems of emergency responders, and so forth. It was a completely different picture without all the hyperbole of the mainstream press (who by this time had largely forgotten about it), and after reading it I had a new respect for Soldier of Fortune magazine.
The trouble with investigative journalism, of course, is that you can't do thorough reporting and beat everyone else to press. Methodical, detailed, rational fact-gathering and analysis takes time. I've never seen a truly dedicated investigative journalism site or magazine, but Reason is close enough to call it one. Every month they'll generally have a couple of articles that are researched in depth about some topic or another, and while all writers have bias, theirs are usually rather subdued when compared to any other source.
And these aren't puff pieces, either. These are articles that examine things that the mainstream press and commentariat SHOULD be investigating and reporting on, but they don't because they've abandoned all pretense of working for the public interest. Radley Balko's various pieces on Stephen Hayne exposed criminal negligence not just on the part of the embattled forensic examiner, but also on the part of the mainstream press for completely dropping the ball on it. How is it that a reporter for a magazine that isn't even present at most newsstands got the dirt on this guy, and the mainstream press completely spaced the whole issue, not just before but after it was published?
The sad fact is that journalism is a largely dead art in America. It's been replaced by infotainment carefully focus-grouped and market-tested to appeal to a specific subcultural cross-section of the population. That's fine for the average mouth-breather who wants a ready-made opinion to spout off to their buddies and coworkers around the water cooler. I'll even allow for the idea that a Commentariat blurb or sound bite may serve as the jumping-off point for deeper personal investigation into the story or issue at hand, assuming said investigation actually occurs. But for those who want to understand the world around them and the issues it has, watching or listening to these morons-with-microphones is like asking for a steak and potatoes dinner and being served something from a vending machine. I just don't see the appeal.
Posted by Tom, 2/12/2010 7:44:33 AM (Permalink). 4 Comments. Leave a comment... |
Drive by AIMs with responses to stupid commentariats you allegedly don't care about aren't very nice either.
Are they?
-- vortmax |
If that's the way you want to see it, nothing I say is going to change your mind.
-- Tom |
Hey, if you think quoting Beck or Limbaugh gets me any latitude in my workplace, think again. Most of the geniuses there are NPR listeners. They're still quoting thoroughly discredited global warming hoaxes and blaming the Obama/Dem congress shortcomings on Republicans, and I don't have to tell you how hard it is to blame everything on a group who holds way less than half the congressional seats. But they do, oh they do, and nothing's good enough to convince them that maybe the new messiah isn't all that and a box of chocolates.
-- thomassmith5cox.net |
NPR does occasionally have deep discussions on things, and for that I salute them. A lot of it is leftist twaddle, but every once in a while I catch a segment of "All Things Considered" that's actually very good when compared to the rest of mass media.
-- Tom | |