The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 12:41:41 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A quick hit.

The Ombudsman for ESPN identifies what is wrong with today's Media:

. . . I call out ESPN for practices common to its cable news peers, such as bloated coverage of the moment's hot-topic stories and the mad dash from scant information to voluminous opinion. Often, the questions I pose ESPN executives can be, and often are, answered with a version of "That's just the way the 24/7 media is today." But I am not ombudsman for CNN or Fox News. I am charged with monitoring ESPN, looking at how its coverage affects sports and sports journalism . . .

"That's the way the 24/7 media is today" is the excuse of all of today's Media. ESPN's Ombudsman seems to be the only person who understands that answer is unacceptable.

< Poll: Huckabee Would Lose to Dems By Double Digits | Crack-Powder Guideline Retroactivity Ruling Expected Today >

Legal

Nothing on this site should be construed as legal advice. TalkLeft does not give legal advice.

TalkLeft is not responsible for and often disagrees with material posted in the comments section. Read at your own risk.

The Soft Bigotry of Low Expectations | 6 comments (6 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

In a similar vein, NYT's The Public Editor (none / 0) (#1)
by oculus on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 01:04:43 PM EST

If it's fit to blog, is it fit to print?

On the McClellan book excerpt press release, bloggers treatment of same, and the holier-than-thou position of the NYT.

Sportscasting (none / 0) (#2)
by pmacfar on Tue Dec 11, 2007 at 02:18:03 PM EST

Yes, it reminds me how Keith Olbermann was a sportscaster. It also reminds me of one of Noam Chomsky's comments to the effect that one reason people love sports so much is that they are allowed to have their own opinions and to debate it on their own terms. No wonder the ESPN guy is the first one to confront the dismal media situation.

Actually (none / 0) (#4)
by jimakaPPJ on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 09:17:45 AM EST

no one I know feels that they can't debate politics on their own terms.

I think Chomsky's elitism is showing.

"Hey Noam! We don't need no High Priests of Political Thought!!"


Right (none / 0) (#5)
by Dadler on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:28:53 AM EST

And no one was called anti-American, traitor, terrorist-lover, etc., for simply disagreeing with King George's malevolent lies. No one has been arrested for simply wearing anti-Bush t-shirts at rallies. It simply hasn't happened, right? Your memory is short and not very acute. Voicing ideas that are out of the "mainstream" will get you labeled and marginalized in this society. If it isn't packaged in plastic and easily digestible it's almost useless to the MSM.


: Furthermore (none / 0) (#6)
by Dadler on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 11:34:51 AM EST

As to your quote that know one you "know" feels they can't debate issues on their own terms, I can honestly say, Jim, I have never heard you debate a single point that actually required a free country in order for you to debate it. Freedom simply means the right to dissent strongly. Strong dissent in this country is labeled and marginalized and kept out of the larger public sphere in the media. It is immediately labeled subversive and illegitimate. Were it not, you would hear more people like Chomsky, and Zinn, Greewald, on the MSM, and not restricted to the internet and other avenues.
And by your definition, elitism means a highly definition and disciplined intellect. But elitism is one of those words in politics that means nothing anymore. Just like liberal and conservative mean nothing. They are thrown around like rags.

welcome back BTD, i missed (none / 0) (#3)
by cpinva on Wed Dec 12, 2007 at 12:50:32 AM EST

ya big guy! lol

massive bloviating would be okay, if it was supported by facts. however, most of those doing said bloviating seem to have minds nicely unencumbered by them. this is "the house that jack built".