|
thanks all for the kind praise of my post.
roachboy makes some important points, most important one is the fact that this is not just a beer-fueled message board debate, but a respeted field of study.
Media studies is a field of study which doesn't seem to carry much weight. I am not an avid watcher of tele-journalism, so I could be wrong when I make this statemnent, but I beleive there is no a single program on any of the major network or cable news outlets dedicated to media criticism.
This is an incredible failing on the part of television. Even mainstream newsprint publications will often carry columns (or at least op-eds) critiquing the media, its biases, its methods, etc. Television (where the overwhelming percentage of Americans get their news) refusing to do so, refusing to even entertain the notion that they may be an instituion, weilding enough power and influence imperfectly to be worthy of some oversight, raises many questions.
Media studies is generally dismissed. The entire field of study being defined as "liberal", and thus apparently not worthy of respect or recognition. The fact is any cultural force as pervasive and powerful as the media should be open to, and interested in criticism. Not only the fact that it isn't open to this review, but that the review is generally veiwed as originating with a leftwing agenda identifies the true biases of the media.
Rather than aswering ciritics, the media instead attempts to erode their credibility by dismissing them as proponents of some liberal agenda. This is really brilliant on their part, they avoid criticism but critiquing the critics, common practice amongst the right.
To paraphrase Chomsky, it is actually within the power-elites interest to have a media establishment recognized as left leaning. This insulates them from criticism from the true left. If the editorial page of the New York Times or commentators on CBS or CNN can be dismissed by those in power of having leftwing biases where does that leave the true left in this country?
If Dan Rather is "a liberal", that frames the debate so that anyone who views Rather as a mainstream mouthpiece of the status quo can only be defineable as a wackjob, or at best a radical. The goal of the mainstream media in this country is to carry on a debate within a very narrow ideological focus at deafening volumes so as to drown out any voices beyond the accepted spectrum.
The obvious reason for this is, of course, money. Conservatives (those interested in maintaining the status quo in which they are rich, be they Republicans or Democrats), are the ones who buy commercial time. It is thus not in the interest of the media to piss off their customers by broadcasting too much news that is unflatering to them.
Again, this is not conspiracy, no-one is censured, not overtly. Reporters know what stories, regardless of their veracity will not make it past their editors, thus they dont bther to pursue them. Or, even more likely, they have no interest in them in the first place, their ideological leanings and inherent biases do not stretch to the point where they would write things that would piss their bosses enough to need to kill their story.
|