I think of blogs as kind of an underground economy, a black-market in news and opinion. They arise naturally in response to deficiencies in the "legitimate" media.

WHILE WE'RE ON THE TOPIC OF MAINSTREAM MEDIA.

Yesterday--Sunday August 23, The National Post's online edition ran a full page feature on the sudden surge of Conservative popularity in the polls. CBC (today-CBC.Ca) ran a story on the corruption in Afghanistan's elections, but no mention about the rise in Conservative popularity.

QUESTION: Who pays CBC reporter's wages. Afghanistan--or Canada?? It's that simple--really.

And then there are people like Michael Yon.

Haven't read/seen stuff like that in the mainstream.......

Me too, rabbit. I read a LOT of stuff every day, none of it on the dead-tree media sites. Particularly science news. MSM science coverage just plain suck, and I mean horribly.

I get the press releases straight up at Eurekalert, and then go to the actual papers if I can, or the abstract at least. 90% of the time you read the New York Times science section or Scientific American (jeeze they've gone downhill!), and you find their "coverage" has virtually nothing whatever to do with the actual event or discovery. Those two are the "top" of the crap heap, everything else is even worse.

Yep and then enter the 911 truthers...stage left...
Like the loon who presented "scientific evidence" that the buildings went down due to a "controlled demolition"......
Remember the debris flowing from the junction and falling away....this guy declares the buildings were in free fall....meaning the building and the debris hit the ground simultaneously....
Then there is the "ice-free NWP"....

It would be nice to see an extensive series of articles about how the media business operates,the relationship between financing and levels of corruption or plagiarism or even manipulation of the news. In many cases, the media doesn't just report on events, they can manipulate and orchestrate matters for good or bad. A topic like this would make an excellent documentary and perhaps even instructional material to be used in schools for a variety of courses. I think every generation needs to revisit this topic.

I happened, the other day, to do this post, inspired by David Olive's almost-laughable piece:

Wishful Thinking By The Biased Big Media

http://thecanadiansentinel.blogspot.com/2009/08/wishful-thinking-by-biased-big-media.html

A little excerpt as food for thought:

Who will serious consumers of news, analysis and punditry trust more: Those who are handsomely paid for saying what they're told, or those who don't do it for money, and who believe that the truth, and as much of it as possible, must come out?

Difference between a blogger and a "professional" journalist: no boss to tell them what to think.

Mortimer @ 2:26...

Excellent idea!

Blogs are modern-day minstrels. The MSM are troubadours.

Speaking of Intellectual Superiors - Here is a Greatest Hits of Quotations by Mark Steyn. Awesome!

http://rightwingnews.com/mt331/2009/08/the_best_quotes_from_mark_stey.php

It would be nice to see an extensive series of articles about how the media business operates,the relationship between financing and levels of corruption or plagiarism or even manipulation of the news.

See Noam Chomsky. But you won't like what you hear.

Those who are handsomely paid for saying what they're told, or those who don't do it for money, and who believe that the truth, and as much of it as possible, must come out?

I'm sure they'll be beating a path to your door, scenty.

I watched the 'Chris Matthews' show (not his Hardball program) during which a panel consisting of Tina Brown (Daily Beast), Joe Klein (Time), Bob Woodward (Wash. Post)and one other CNN talking head. The show was on Seattle's KING, which I believe is an NBC affilate.

They were discussing the 'struggles' of the broadsheet media, (even while acknowledging the actual death of papers like the Seattle Post-Intelligencer) and the role of bloggers in their troubles.

They of course denigrated bloggers in general, carrying on about the dearth of 'fact checkers' and the lack of 'professionalism', 'journalistic integrity' and that bloggers too often slant and spin in order to confirm their loyal reader's own belief system.

The money shot however, was when Time Magazine's Joe Klein bemoaned the fact that he missed the traditon of "the newsroom's shared senseabilities"

And then they wonder why no one takes them seriously anymore.

in today's historical anecdote we look at the time curious wuz at a computer show in Tranna. all the heavyweights were there. Burroughs, IBM, Digital Eqpt, Control Data and dozens of specialty firms with everything from ways to colour identify mag tapes to maintenance contracts for card handling equipment.

it was the early 80s when the IBM XT was a toddler. such mirth and guffawing by the suits. me? well, I hurried up and finished my schooling since I could see the digital bits on the wall.

Compaq bought out Digital Equipment Corporation in 1998.

the MSM suits are in denial.

the asteroid is on its way.

"See Noam Chomsky. But you won't like what you hear. "

The main thing you won't like about him is terminal boredom highlighted by ponderous self-satisfaction.
He's made a living conning credulous undergrads with worn out cliches about power and media. It was worn out when I first read it in high school.
And of course, he shakes the foundations of society while enjoying tenure at a major university and all the rewards of the American dream. Yup, he's a rebel...

This is one of the reasons I thought that Perky Curic, in her interview of Palin, so missed the mark. She asked Palin what newspapers she reads, as if she waited breathlessly to be told what to think by the NYT thumping on her transom the way Curic does. I read "all of 'em" too, from the WSJ to the Guardian.

Of course she accomplished her goal, because the quote was used to make Palin seem stupid and unlettered, which was what she was really after.

Well, I happen to agree with a point Chomsky makes. Mega corporations like GE and billionaires like Carlos Slim, buy newspapers and TV outlets to push their interests with an overgrown government. I mean how can you ask Obama for a favor if you can't do one back? He doesn't need your money.

The funny thing is the billionaires are almost all Democrats (Corporatists), it's the mere millionaires that are Republican. The ones who got that way on their own two feet, not by getting some favor slipped into some bill or other by a paid for politician.

Poor old journalists. At J-school they were puffed up by their profs with tales of greatness and noble purpose. They believed that they were essential links bringing forth wisdom and an superior knowledge to the masses. Then that darned internet came along and spoiled everything. Nowadays they are behind the crowd, desperately yelling to the mob "No, you fools, follow us ....turn left, turn left"

OK, one last one.

Newspapers expressing surprise at blogs is like if the automakers were manufacturing cars without steering wheels, and then expressing surprise when the market starts making them and they get popular.

What the newspapers don't deliver is genuine critical thinking, they deliver rhetorical arguments for their side larded with selected facts and marred by omitted ones.

Tim

Arguably the two most successful media moguls in this new era are mort zuckerman- usnews and world report and the Washington times and Rupert murdoch - fox news sky both would be classed as republicans.

"...both would be classed as republicans."

Classed as...??

Either they are or they are not I think.

As for the mention of Chomsky .... I'm sure the pheeblephilchild thinks that mentioning of the name will cast some overwhelming spell of confusion upon us all.

OR perhaps some game winning trump card?

Well ... it is not to be ... even though he fails to cite the little essay called "Manufacturing Consent" it is plainly what he refers to.

Chomsky was right about the group think .... but he was dead wrong about which side of the political spectrum it fell upon.

Considering that the essay was likely not even his own work but rather a collaboration with some of his commie comrades and various parts appear in other works dating back to the 1950s it may never have been his own idea. Man-Con ...

The crypto commie's trump card ..... flushed.

RE: Blogs, news reports, columns, obituaries, AKA, journalism.

Whether you were the town crier in New England in 1776, telling the folks gathered in front of the town hall what the new Constitution meant to everyone. Whether you were an undergound journalist distributing folders in Paris as the revoltion raged in the streets of that city. Whether you were Nicholas Flood Davin writing reports of Louis Riel's trial by the light of a coal oil lamp during the night in 1885, so the story would be ready for the Regina Leader the next morning. Whether you were a reporter with the Dallas Morning News on November 22, 1963, typing up a report of JFK's assissination on the new IMB "Selectric" typewriter that was "teletype friendly." Wheter you were a reporter or a journalist or a columnist with the New York Times on the evening of 9-1-1, you, (we,) should always remember this. It's all about: A: Writing the truth. B: Keeping personal feelings out of the text. C: Adopting a standard text that everyone can read and/or understand. D: And last but not least, never forgetting that the story is about "Them," and not "You."

PS: re: LC Bennett who wrote: "Poor old Journalists...etc. The "poor old journalists," to say the least, had a sense of order and direction. It was the advertisers, and corporate greed who (that) corrupted their work when they saw "conflict of interest." (E: Ralph Nader-VS General Motors-1965.) That was not the journalist's wish, nor their professors at "J-School." Sorry LC, but the right is not always right, and it is sometimes mean, if you know what I mean.

Red Star had this peculiar fetish about inserting one lefty/eco columnist per moneymaking section of its product, as if that balanced out the profit making and left their virtue somehow intact. No matter the subject at hand, there would be a recitation of the party line: Everybody must now move downtown and raise their kids in high rise condos, take public transit or bicycle, drink tap water, etc, etc.

As others have mentioned, Afghan Corruption stories by the MSM seems to peak whenever the Taliban has suffered a crushing defeat or the poll numbers for governments they oppose at home show improvement.

Gord,
I am not talking about media companies making a living finding a niche, and you should read some of Murdoch's papers overseas, if you want to see lefty groupthink. I am thinking Australia here. I am talking about companies like GE owning a broadcast network, NBC, and cable networks, CNBC, MSNBC. Even having the head of GE call in CNBC and call them out on Obama bashing. At the same time, GE which gives Obama knob slobbering coverage, and which stands to gain billions from "green" energy "investment" from Obama's party.

That kind of thing. Murdoch has a point of view that lives or dies by the media marketplace. Can you really say that NBC and MSNBC are driven by ratings? No, they are driven by an ideology which is so unpopular that nobody watches, and they march heedlessly on.

You mean Noam Chomsky the anti-capitalist anarchist... who had a big stock filled trust fund set up for his grandchild?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_as_I_Say_%28Not_as_I_Do%29:_Profiles_in_Liberal_Hypocrisy

Kathy's comment:
"You mean Noam Chomsky the anti-capitalist anarchist... who had a big stock filled trust fund set up for his grandchild?

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Do_as_I_Say_%28Not_as_I_Do%29:_Profiles_in_Liberal_Hypocrisy"

Wow- now that is good news. Please- God- let the investments have been GM and Bernie's Fund!

Re: "appendages of the mainstream media"

I didn't realize that part of the body could have an appendage.

tim in vermont at 8:47 PM

yah tim, any time I'v researched Ruppee, or read news articles about him, he doesn't impress me as a (C)onservative. I always read Fox on line, and some of their stuff is very (L)iberal

re. Kathy Shaidle @8:58 - Hey, he's an America-hating anarchist, not a fool!

It doesn't matter if Murdoch is conservative or liberal. He serves the market to get ratings. That is different than serving a corporate master which has its own interests separate from ratings which depend on favorable treatment by the govt.

It's called corporatism, that is what Mussolini called it anyway. He didn't like the term fascism. The majority of big billionaires are Democrats.

Doesn't Zukerman own the Atlantic Monthly, employer of Palin deranged Andrew Sullivan? If he was any kind of Republican, he would fire the pantie sniffer on grounds of taste alone.

Joe Citizens, I have read and re-read your post and, to me, your last paragraph reads like "A proof is a proof. What kind of a proof? It's a proof. A proof is a proof. And when you have a good proof, it's because it's proven.(Jean Chretien)".

I am just not sure what you are trying to say - maybe that it not the journalists fault, someone else has done this to them? Sorry, but failing to stand up and resist is being complicit in your own destruction.

LC:

I guess what it all boils down to is that if everyone wrote or spoke the truth in the first place, we wouldn't be arguing, now would we. I love that line (Chretien.)