Comments on: When the press doesn’t call bullshit

By: David Sager

David Sager — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:39:56 +0000

This article and the responses are just another example of the solipsism of the left. The big three are outlets of the democratic party, and cnn is an echo of that. Only Fox provides some relief from the monotony of rebuke and dark innuendo coming from the other four. Is it not possible for people to just disagree, and maybe we don’t yet know who is right? But such a reasonable position is anathema to the Bush haters.

By: why comedy really matters at infotainment rules

why comedy really matters at infotainment rules — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:29:26 +0000

[...] The other day, Jeff Jarvis linked to the laments of a couple of comedians, Nick Tanner and Armando Iannucci, both of whom wanted to know why comedy seems to have supplanted the serious national conversation that’s supposed to be taking place in the media and by politicians in these grave times of war—as if politicians aren’t publicity whores and the media isn’t dying to give each and every one of them a roll in the hay, the consequences be damned! (For the record: There is serious debate (i.e., nutritious food for thought) for people who live in free societies and are seriously interested in informing themselves about it; it’s available from all over the globe, 24/7, at the click of a mouse. They do have to seek it out, however. If they’re expecting the media to spoon-feed it to them, they’re asking for a junk-food diet.) [...]

By: Suebob

Suebob — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 21:03:02 +0000

The reason I love The Daily Show is that they are the only ones who show the lies and reversals for what they are. The dig up the video and compare statements side-by-side. What is so difficult about that, that other media outlets can’t do it?

By: Jeff

Jeff — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 15:21:51 +0000

Whether or not investigative journalists are doing a good enough job isn’t the issue. Whether news consumers think they’re doing a good job is all that matters.

And clearly they don’t.

By: wordyeti

wordyeti — Mon, 30 Oct 2006 02:29:09 +0000

You are reminding me of the commentary by Olbermann a couple of weeks ago, in reaction to a speech that Bush gave. During the speech, Bush was asked about what Colin Powell had said about the U.S. losing its position of moral authority in the world.

What jumped out at Olbermann was Bush’s phrase “You aren’t allowed to think…” that the insurgents are doing this or that.

You aren’t allowed to think. Thoughtcrime. Indeed. Disagreement is heresy and religions have taken a rather dim view of that, all throughout history.

By: tony

tony — Sun, 29 Oct 2006 09:31:06 +0000

wondering when the National Press will calll bullshit on Bush’s new power: being able to call Martial Law and bring in the National Guard whenever he wants.

By: Robert Feinman

Robert Feinman — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 19:09:52 +0000

One could also ask why many of the most insightful critics of media (and especially US media) seem to come from the UK.

Not only aren’t we supporting investigative reporters we don’t seem to be fostering a new generation of social critics either (I don’t count the paid critics at the right wing “think tanks”).

Looks like your CUNY program has its work cut out for it, Jeff.

By: Jim Wilson

Jim Wilson — Sat, 28 Oct 2006 16:49:26 +0000

Amen to all that. I’m a fan of both Stewart and Colbert for those reasons. Olberman is another one who uses satire as a way to point out the ridiculousness of much of what we’re seeing. The whole notion of “fair and balanced” as being to present all sides with equal weight, no matter the facts, is a crock.