Effective Use of the Media

By Jeralyn, Section Media
Posted on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:25:12 PM EST
Tags: (all tags)

Share This: Digg!

Big Tent Democrat wrote earlier on his thoughts about the uselessness of the mainstream media. He ends with:

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?

I still find the mainstream media very helpful. I just factcheck it by reading multiple accounts and comparing it to source documents. [More...]

For example, in writing today about the California bill passed last night to cut prison funding and overcrowding, the story to me was not so much that the bill passed, but that the version that passed was a weaker one than originally proposed and one that fails to comply with the federal court order. The tough on crime Republicans in the California legislature won the day.

To get the whole story, it took reading the LA Times, the Sacramento Bee, the San Jose Mercury News and then the text of the amended passed bill.

The text of the bill alone would not have done it.

Maybe it depends on whether you are looking for commentary and opinion or news and analysis. I pretty much read the mainstream media for news and analysis, not commentary and opinion. And when it comes to analysis, I compare numerous versions. For commentary and opinion, I'm going to read the sources I trust whose views I generally agree with, like the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch.

With everyone on Twitter, finding breaking news and reactions quickly is easier than ever.

I've never watched the Sunday news shows and rarely watch cable news any more (it's not in HD here and they have cut costs to the point where they have the same predictable stable of pundits on night after night, almost all of whom I have no interest in watching.)

The media is changing, which to me doesn't make it useless. It just means I've changed how and when I rely on it. I really regret that so many newspapers are folding and cutting their news staffs. More and more, I just want the news, from which I decide whether to do further research and can draw my own conclusions.

< CA Legislature Passes Weaker Prison Reduction Bill | Blagojevich Co-Defendant Dies, Was Scheduled to Surrender Next Week >

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.

Effective Use of the Media | 28 comments (28 topical)

Readers Must Login or Create an Account to Comment

You just affirmed (5.00 / 6) (#1)
by Cream City on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 12:36:19 PM EST

the agenda-setting theory and role of media, i.e., they do not tell us what to think but what to think about. But that's because you're a "heavy media user," more likely to use them rather than let them use and abuse you.

Last year, sadly, too many millions of lite aka amateur media users let media tell them what to think. . . .

What I miss is the watchdog role of media. It is a costly role, but was worth it to make me and many others read, listen, watch -- and keep coming back for more. It's almost gone now.

And, of course, the watchdog role of media was the crucial role for which they got the First Amendment. These days, they don't deserve it to give me more stories about the First Lady's arms while media neglect to report clearly how much we're spending on, say, arming ourselves to wage hopeless wars.

What do you make of this thing... (5.00 / 1) (#11)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 04:23:33 PM EST

From Talking Points Memo:

An overnight poll by AARP shows that Obama's speech on health care helped resolve the concerns of many people over 45 dumb enough to believe braying Republicans that the Administration planned on executing the elderly.

A debate is still going on about it at the Friday Night Open Thread. My position is that these allegedly "dumb people" are thoroughly, and understandably, overwhelmed by the lock-step, omnipresent narratives of corporate media who are main-lining the rhetoric of "braying Republicans" 24/7. Other commenters agree with Josh Marshall in placing blame on "dumb people".

But, from what I'm seeing here on this thread, commenters feel like it's actually quite a challenge to get out from under the horse $hit and find some scrap of decipherable truth to drag out into the light of day. Thank you.


You've put it very well Donald... (5.00 / 1) (#20)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 08:24:26 PM EST

I find this observation to be highly poignant:

the outrageous satire they laughed at 30 years ago in the Oscar-winning film Network, i.e., "The Howard Beale Show", has astonishingly and sadly come to pass.

I think the original audience for that 1976 film is probably particularly aware that the fictional, nightmare media scenario has, indeed, become a reality. In other words, they really have a basis for comparison. Meaning, they are old enough to remember responsible journalism and they are in a position to be thoroughly cognizant and appalled by it's complete demise.

On the other hand, Josh Marshall is 40 - and responsible, old-school journalism was dead and gone before he even reached adulthood. Marshall's arrogance indicates that he is totally oblivious to the idea that his perspective is seriously hampered by the limitations of his own comparatively brief experience with the history of media.


Josh Marshall's perspective (2.00 / 0) (#21)
by gyrfalcon on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:30:03 PM EST

is seriously hampered by his lust to be taken seriously by The Village.

He was quite an astute critic of the media before he got the gleam in his eye that he might attend cocktail parties with David Broder, or better yet, be quoted by him.

As for the "responsible journalism" of the past-- trust me, it wasn't that good. Washington journalists were, if anything, even more deeply embedded -- sometimes literally in bed with -- the pols and bureaucrats they covered.

There were, it's true, the glories days of the Washington Post in the '70s, but that was a fairly short-lived era. CNN in its early years was a joke, it was so incompetent. ABC News had its string of glory years with Arledge, Jennings, Koppel and the whole gang, but it was a half hour of 2-minute stories a night and a half hour with Koppel that did some great stuff, but also ignored and belittled equally important stuff.

Those are the only examples of anything I would call "responsible journalism" in my lifetime.


Tangential question... (none / 0) (#22)
by FoxholeAtheist on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 09:39:18 PM EST

You mentioned WaPo in the 70s, did you follow reporting on Watergate at the time?


: To the extent I could (none / 0) (#29)
by gyrfalcon on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 12:08:48 PM EST

but that was mostly when my paper reprinted their stories, which they usually did with W&B. Back in "dose days," it was extremely difficult to get the WaPo. They've never been distributed very far outside the Beltway, and the one newsstand that did carry it -- a day late -- was usually sold out before I could get there.
But I picked the paper up whenever I could for years because it was such a good paper. In violent contrast to the Times, it was both in-depth and interestingly written. The Times news pieces used to have all the pizzazz of a telephone book, only with many more factual errors.

You get a 5 rating for the Josh Marshall comments (2.00 / 0) (#19)
by Angel on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 08:13:34 PM EST

alone. He is a sexist fool.


: please don't name-call here (none / 0) (#24)
by Jeralyn on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 11:18:42 PM EST

Was it deliberate or an oversight: (none / 0) (#30)
by prittfumes on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:31:13 PM EST

Well, in this current age of the relentlessly partisan FOX News, the perennially disappointing CNN, and the snidely cynical editorial boards of the Washington Post and Wall Street Journal, that's just not the case anymore. ...

not to include MSNBC?


Difference is Local vs. National (5.00 / 1) (#2)
by The Last Whimzy on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:11:34 PM EST

I think (merely a hunch, i don't want to speak for big tent democrat, but perhaps this won't offend too much) big tent's deal is with national politics pertaining to punditry. which IS useless and a total waste of time.

Local reporting is still decent and helpful. as noted above.

The MSM lost me some time ago. (5.00 / 2) (#3)
by inclusiveheart on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:31:55 PM EST

I used to relish the thought of the NY Times story that would appear the next day after the TV media broke it - because it would typically offer a long-form and in-depth analysis of whatever the "important" story was - no matter how much of a throw away the TV news producers may have made it the day/night before. Then the USA Today model started to take hold and the stories in papers like the Times started to shrink, the analysis was superficial and the detail was thinner and thinner. In my first "real" job out of college I read 10-20 newspapers from around the country every day - plus a few international papers. I loved that. There was variety in the perspectives, the stories, the focus - but now with the advent of mega-corporate news conglomerates that has all but evaporated. The Times and the Post sold their souls to color pictures and short-form reporting and they lost me. Reading is a pain in the butt for a dyslexic like me - so what's the point if I can get the same inane topline from a TV news anchor that I could get from a newspaper? I mourn the loss, but I can say that I don't feel sorry for the people who destroyed the art form of great print reporting at all.

Challenging (5.00 / 1) (#4)
by waldenpond on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:37:23 PM EST

I do my online 'news' rounds most days. It takes reading quite a few fluff articles to piece together facts to have a minimal understanding of an issue. I find that too much attention is paid to weak arguments in an effort to provide
'both sides' without challenging a particular position.

For me, the fact that I have to read (5.00 / 2) (#5)
by Anne on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:45:22 PM EST

multiple accounts before I have something I think resembles as big a picture as I need to form an opinion, and even then, am left wondering if there isn't still something missing, is what makes the media increasingly useless.

I mean, who has that kind of time?

Newspapers have cut staffs to ridiculously low levels, not just on the reporting end, but on the editorial end - so there is less fact-checking, and, because a lot of material goes straight to the online outlet, the reliability of the information is even more suspect.

TV news? I watch local more for weather and sports, and sometimes traffic, but I am increasingly bypassing the national media because it is almost impossible to sort fact from agenda, and the constant cheerleading just gets on my nerves.

: I stopped watching local TV news (5.00 / 2) (#6)
by Spamlet on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 01:56:10 PM EST

about 30 years ago, after one of our local network affiliates aired a "special report" on the unusually hot, dry weather. The "news" execs could have decided to offer in-depth analysis about the repercussions for water/farming politics and policy and any number of other things. Instead, they sent a reporter and a camera crew out to fry an egg on the sidewalk. Film at eleven!

Media (5.00 / 3) (#7)
by kaleidescope on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 02:04:24 PM EST

I'm more in BTD's camp. Like Tom Waits I used to read the Sunday paper on Saturday night. I would get up early every morning to get the Times and sit and read it. I can't remember how long it's been since I've done that.

I think that's partly because I have become much more proficient at "reading" the media -- seeing what they are really saying when they "report" the news. How the Village mentality infuses practically everything they print or report. How -- mainly because of the media -- there is so little hope for democracy anymore. And this just irritates me.

Maybe I'm getting old, but I don't really feel like being irritated and depressed before I go to work.

: I too am getting old and miss the hope and joy (5.00 / 1) (#8)
by mogal on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 02:13:53 PM EST

and just plain fun of following politics.

Fact-checking the news. (5.00 / 1) (#10)
by ChiTownDenny on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 03:32:27 PM EST

How obcsene is that in a democracy? Is it any wonder BTD and Jeralyn represent the conundrum facing MSM?

I do not (5.00 / 1) (#13)
by sas on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 06:10:52 PM EST

trust any of the media. Designing the news as entertainment has so subverted its original intent as to make it both worthless and useless.

Whether it be for the most part the right wing wackos at Fox, the misogynists at MSNBC, or the lefty sensationalism of CNN - it's all entertainment.

The print media is better, but still designed to print what sells, particularly in choosing and writing headline and front page stories. Often analysis is minimal, and that might be just a good thing.

I respect only the McNeill-Lehrer Report, NPR, and international news.

Inadvertent Indictment? (5.00 / 4) (#14)
by pluege on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 06:20:53 PM EST

I just factcheck it

exactly the point,

that you must factcheck US corporate media, and with sources other than US corporate media or you'll never know the truth - should NOT be the case at all.
most people do NOT factcheck the media, they read or watch their favorite outlets and absorb their lies without question. This is exactly the problem with America, why republican extremism has had control of the levers of power AND the national dialogue, and been successful in destroying rational thought, literally ending any accountability of republican extremism and criminality, and undermined everything America once stood for.

Opinion is cheap (5.00 / 4) (#16)
by s5 on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:16:59 PM EST

I still do not understand why newspapers and television have professional "opinion havers". Give me top notch reporting and analysis, and dump the pundits. Sadly, the news media seems to be trending in the opposite direction.

I ended up watching NBC News (5.00 / 2) (#17)
by Anne on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 07:47:28 PM EST

tonight - my husband was flipping through the channels and stopped on it - and the first two stories reinforced for me why it is I don't watch anymore.

Today there was a march on DC to protest government takeover of health care - among other things - and despite the involvement of organizations like FreedomWorks, it was billed by the reporters as a grassroots effort. They spoke to some of the attendees, and what a bunch they were: one woman was there because, she said, "Muslims are taking over the country." One man railed about the Communists.

Did the reporter tell the public who and what FreedomWorks is? Or comment at all on these outrageous comments by marchers? OF course not. It all just stood as though there was nothing else that needed to be said about it.

Was there any attempt by NBC to provide the kind of info ThinkProgress has?

Speaking to reporters and ThinkProgress after the rally, Armey pretended that the upcoming 9/12 anti-Obama march on D.C. was entirely "grassroots," and that his corporate-backed group only provided "consulting." In fact, most of the groups paying for the rally are front groups and phony think tanks fully-funded by big business to create an image of public and academic support for their special interest agenda. One of the most visible organizations mobilizing the protest this Saturday is the Tea Party Patriots group. As Talking Points Memo has reported, the Tea Party Patriots' listserv is managed by FreedomWorks staffer Tom Gaitens. Not only is the list managed by FreedomWorks, but Armey's staffers have final say on decisions such as the logo for the event this Saturday. Tea Party Patriots does not even hide its close affiliation with corporate front groups, since it lists FreedomWorks as a coalition partner. The Tea Party Patriots listserv was used to distribute the infamous memo from a Tea Party Patriots volunteer detailing how town hall attendees should "rattle" Democrats by interrupting their events with coordinated yelling and shrieks.

Second story was Obama in Minnesota doing a campaign-style rally for "his" health care plan. Not much real info there, either.

This is what America sees when it turns on the TV - is it any wonder so many of them have no idea which end is up?

: Network news -- (none / 0) (#18)
by brodie on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 08:11:20 PM EST

22 minutes of a blowdried type reading headlines for an audience mostly composed of those approaching retirement -- the folks who grew up watching them in the 60s and 70s because that was all there was on teevee.
Their longest "in depth" stories (one per broadcast usually) typically top out at two minutes.
Well, at least back in the day, in some locales anyway, the nat'l networks could be supplemented by some decent local news reporting on a given station in the larger cities. But most of that is gone now, too.
CNN these days -- many years past Ted Turner's prime years, when he was young and hungry to deliver something different and substantial -- they're mostly just reading headlines and gabbing all day too.

au contriaire; they effectively choose our (5.00 / 2) (#25)
by Bornagaindem on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:02:48 AM EST

presidents for us. Obama would not be president if the media hadn't fallen in love with him. The grass roots democrats recognized that Obambi wasn't ready to run for that office but they were overruled by the media (and of course the media dependent super delegates). Just like the citizens of america were overruled by the media when Bill Clinton was impeached.

So they can't be characterized as truly useless.

I miss the real investigations , as someone called it, the watch dog role - only they can afford to find out these things and that is being thrown under the bus in favor of cheap interviews , faux scandals and nonsense. There was always a place for that junk but when it becomes all there is we are doomed. And that is all there is.

: Agree with you (none / 0) (#31)
by prittfumes on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 04:44:10 PM EST

except for "... And that is all there is."
We're not quite there yet.

There's also (5.00 / 1) (#26)
by jbindc on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 10:40:03 AM EST

the fact that people who read blogs (including myself), tend to gravitate towards blogs whose political philosophy agrees with their own. Even Jeralyn said:

For commentary and opinion, I'm going to read the sources I trust whose views I generally agree with, like the ACLU, the Center for Constitutional Rights, Human Rights Watch.

We get so wrapped up in reading blogs we like who agree with each other, and never reading blogs for opinions that differ from ours. When someone introduces a point made on a conservative blog, it is immediately shot down by other commenters as dumb, stupid, unreliable, etc. Sorry folks - all "liberal" blogs are not 100% accurate and all conservative blogs are not 100% wrong. Seriously - I would no more completely rely on facts introduced in a column by Ezra Klein or Markos without serious fact-checking than I would on a column by Byron York or any of the posters on the Corner. And as others have said - who has the time?

I think it would do us all a bit of good to listen and read other points of view, even if we disagree 100% with them, instead of entrenching ourselves so firmly in our beliefs that we only end up more polarized.

: I second your opinion (5.00 / 1) (#28)
by Upstart Crow on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 11:24:00 AM EST

What's really struck me in the last few years is how little anyone really tries to understand the other side in politics -- to really comprehend their p.o.v. and respond to legitimate questions and concerns.
It's all degenerated to name-calling, straw men, and misleading generalizations.

Yesterday's Coast Guard... (none / 0) (#15)
by MileHi Hawkeye on Sat Sep 12, 2009 at 06:42:46 PM EST

..."incident" is a perfect example of the MSM run amock and pushing fear masked as news.

Instead of digging deeper and checking facts to find out what was really going on, CNN and then Fox ran with the "raw story". So what should have been a minor story became a breathless, hysterical pandering to the American public's base insecurities and fear. Especially given the significance of the day.

Too bad the FCC can't punish them for their Chicken Little reporting--which needlessly put a city into panic and closed down a major airport.

strange bedfellows (none / 0) (#32)
by diogenes on Sun Sep 13, 2009 at 09:46:28 PM EST

Hey, hey...BTD and Rush Limbaugh completely agree about the mainstream media!