My Retreat From The Media

By Big Tent Democrat, Section Media
Posted on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:02:14 AM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

A couple of weeks ago, I wrote another screed about Fred Hiatt and the WaPo, coupled with my refrain that the Media is fast becoming irrelevant. This time I added the idea that the thing to do was ignore them.

Today I realized that I have not read the Washington Post (I do read Ezra Klein and via Greenwald, I read an online chat with WaPo reporter Paul Kane) at all since that day. This was not a deliberate decision. I just did not read it. Not Broder, not Cohen, not any of it. To be honest I do not read the NYTimes that much anymore. A story here or there when someone points it out.

I used to devour news. Now I find it useless. I do not trust the Media. And I do not think their editorial judgments of what is news is particularly helpful or insightful. (Glenn Greenwald's column today demonstrates why.) So like the Sunday Talk shows, the Media is really becoming NOT part of my life. Is the same thing happening to any of you?

Speaking for me only

< Saturday College Football Open Thread | Charlie Cook's Myopic Analysis >

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.

My Retreat From The Media | 53 comments (53 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

Not really (5.00 / 3) (#1)
by andgarden on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:07:03 AM EST

I don't watch nearly as much cable news as I used to, and I watch sunday talk maybe once every 3-4 months. But I still scan the Times, and RSS brings me most of the Philly Inquirer.

WaPo gets almost no attention from me, but it never really did.

It's the "trust" thing (5.00 / 2) (#2)
by Lora on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:21:36 AM EST

I do not trust the Media.

Good for you! I haven't trusted them for years.

Unfortunately, they are responsible for shaping the opinions of a large part of the American public.

Less and less (5.00 / 7) (#12)
by Upstart Crow on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 10:06:38 AM EST

The younger generation -- 20 somethings -- don't read the papers at all. They watch tv, but mostly they're on the 'net.

After the misogynist election coverage, I gave up. I go to blogs and news aggregators now. At least I can get the opinions without water, and they ask tougher questions.

I predicted the demise would accelerate after the shoddy election coverage, and I was right.

Full disclosure: I'm in the media biz.


The internet plays its part (none / 0) (#25)
by Lora on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:27:09 AM EST

Going to the internet won't save you from the brainwashing.

Here's a nice piece of right-wing baloney right on msn.com today:

4 problems that could sink America

First part: "we don't like to work"
Translation: the middle class is lazy if they want to retire.

Second part: "we don't like to sacrifice"
Translation: Don't think of taxing the rich any more!

Third part: "we're uninformed"
Translation: if you don't understand exactly all the ins and outs of the health care debate, it's your fault.

Fourth part: "the iculture"
Translation: The middle class wants a free ride (when it comes to things like health care, education, or retirement).

Final translation: If you want government-provided health care or a decent social security benefit, you are lazy, greedy, uninformed, expect a free ride, and you'll bring down our fragile economic recovery.

Didn't say it wouldn't (5.00 / 2) (#31)
by Upstart Crow on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:20:01 PM EST

But I find that the writing is less bland, more openly opinionated, and by sifting through the leftwing and rightwing blogs and aggregators, I can get a better picture of what's happening rather than trying to figure out what Newsweek or the New York Times is refusing to cover today. Plus the openly fawning coverage of the new administration frankly nauseates me.


: Agree (none / 0) (#43)
by Lora on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 06:25:54 PM EST

Yes (5.00 / 5) (#3)
by dk on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:23:03 AM EST

I would suppose our attitudes on this will partly be a function of our ages.

I'm pushing 40, so for a good chunk of my young adult life, mainstream print journalism (and appearances of mainstream print journalists on the TV) was a major source of news for me. That has changed significantly in the last few years.

Like BTD, I'll skim the NYT, and I'll check my local paper (the Boston Globe) online daily, but other than that I don't have much interest in the mainstream media. Of course, the time I used to spend paying attention to media has been replaced to a great degree by reading certain blogs for news and analysis.

However, that still leaves me with two questions. Is my new lack of interest in the mainstream media because the media has degenerated, or just becuase I've moved on (or both)? And, are my new sources of information/analysis, on the whole, really any better than the old?

: one vote for degeneration (5.00 / 6) (#4)
by Dadler on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:29:09 AM EST

the msm reporters are now wealthy celebrity types, part of the ruling class, rather than objective and unsparing commentators on it.

Yes (5.00 / 7) (#5)
by BDB on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:35:26 AM EST

I used to devour newspapers. Love them. Now I don't subscribe and I've even stopped going to their websites. If I want news, I go to McClatchy and that's pretty much it.

I miss my Sunday paper. If the Post were even halfway decent, I'd at least buy that.

IMO, their business model isn't failing because of the internet, it's because their product is crap.

: That describes me also (5.00 / 1) (#50)
by ruffian on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 07:46:00 AM EST

I used to spend an hour a day with the LA Times- long time ago- and most of my life subscribed to one of the weekly news mags. The quality of the major papers and mags has declined so much that I just do not find it enjoyable anymore.
TV 'news' is even worse. I don't bother with it at all unless there is a major event in progress.
I read the local paper in the morning just out of habit for something to read with breakfast, and use the NYT iPhone app occassionally to see if I'm missing anything big. And blogs like this one do alert me to news I am interested in.
I'm getting weaned off the Sunday shows- spending more time at the park with my dog and the local philosophers instead.

All on Demand (5.00 / 3) (#6)
by willia451 on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:40:03 AM EST

The MSM is bereft of any substantive analysis or true investigative reporting. They have all made the tactical decision to appeal to the least common denominator in their single minded hounding for more and more corporate sponsorship and advertising.

Therefore, what you get from them is predictable. Fluff.

I'll watch a show or read an article, only so much as it relates to a subject that might add to what I already know. Which it almost never does.

But generally, almost all my information now comes from the web; on demand, and screened for content. Through feeds and custom search engines.

Yes! (5.00 / 6) (#7)
by snstara on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:41:44 AM EST

I used to devour newspapers. At some point in the late 80s/early 90s, I began to notice a disconnect between the stories I'd see in DC's free City Paper (before it swung rightward) and news items in the Post and NY Times. Still, I did think that both papers reported news; perhaps the City Paper just arrived at the story first.

However, my thinking shifted. The false stories and hurried apology at the Post over, who was she, Janet Cooke? So much coverage of outright lies about the Clintons and so little attention paid to the untruths told by Reagan/Bush I. And then, the coupe de grace, the distortions and the media micromanagement of the 2000 election and its aftermath.

But the very last straw for me was personal. I was at the very well attended March for Women's Lives. Millions of people. And this was presented as an afterthought in the press, if at all. Whatever coverage we did get saw 'equal space' given to the tiny anti-choice opposition who barely showed up. It was as if this event never happened - or was reconstructed in such a