And I'm Not Talking Fox, I'm Talking The Good Old BBC

[poliphilo]

Sharon is "fighting for his life"- that's the reigning cliche. But how do they know? Sharon is in a coma; he's not doing anything- and if he is, it isn't visible to bystanders and certainly not to Our Special Reporter Camped Outside The Hospital (poor sod) or his Anchor. Maybe Sharon is longing to just get on with it and pay the ferryman and is furious with the doctors who are holding him back.

I don't know if the standard is getting worse or it's just that I've tumbled to their tricks, but I'm always catching myself shouting at the newscasters these days.

Comments

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Sorry. I don't follow this. Seriously -- I have no idea what you're trying to say here. "We don't like him anymore" -- who's the we you had in mind, and who's the him?

I note that in other comments on this thread you speak a lot about "we Americans." I don't think that anyone can characterize my fellow citizens in so monolithic a fashion. We, meaning you and I, are likely to find that we have many things and common but also many points of difference.

When I was growing up my father, a journalism major, was adamant that opinion belonged on the editorial pages and not in news stories. That has pretty much gone by the boards these days. When an article begins something like, "In a desperate bid to buttress his flagging poll numbers, so-and-so claimed..." it's not reportage, it's opinion, and should be clearly labeled as such and put on the editorial or op-ed page.

This is no longer happening. I'm assuming that the end result will be a jaded public that says "it's all spin" and tries to sift out the bits of fact among the flood of opinion, but I acknowledge that I may be overestimating the capacity for critical thought of many consumers of U.S. media.

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

You're right about the way that Bush is being treated by the media. I noticed the "trumpets" thing the other day and was astonished for the reasons you note. It definitely expresses an opinion. The only way I could account for it is that all the other, objective news was about how iffy the economy is right now. At the same time, Bush and Cheney are trying to tell people how great it is. It makes them seem even more out of touch than usual.

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

"How iffy the economy is"...?

The Wall Street Journal has been on and on about how all the good news about the economy tends to be buried.

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

Always? Or just now?

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

Recent months. Sorry I can't be more specific but I didn't know there was going to be a quiz (*grin*).

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

That's fine. I find that an interesting POV, but forgive me if I don't believe it without seeing the article.

I'm also influenced by IBM's recent announcement that it's ending it's pension plan. While it doesn't affect me--I get no retirement benefits from IBM because I'm not really an employee--I think it expresses a view of the future that is not a rosy one. And it's certainly going to affect the lives of the people who had been depending on those pensions. This is just one example of the kind of thing that's happening all over that makes me feel less than optimistic about the economy.

But then, at this point, I'm not sure what it would take me to feel optimistic about it!

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[lblanchard.livejournal.com]

It actually has been a recurring theme rather than one particular article. Next one I run across I'll send to you. I'm sure you're not surprised to learn that we subscribe.

Re: "allegedly objective media"

[karenkay.livejournal.com]

No, I'm not surprised. I have subscribed myself from time to time. Hm. I get a free subscription from Audible.com to either the NYT or WSJ... I have listening to the NYT every morning. Maybe I'll try the WSJ.