Would you believe that Dan Rather is calling on former President George W. Bush to lead a blue-ribbon effort to reform the news media? Well, obviously, the disgraced ex-CBS News anchor is not trusting the future of journalism to Bush, but in an op-ed in Sunday’s Washington Post, he is asking President Barack Obama “form a commission to address the perilous state of America’s news media.”
Rather insists he is not asking for any kind of a “government bailout” or “government control” of the media, just a high-profile discussion of the state of the media:
Why bring the President into it? Because this is the only way I could think of to generate the sort of attention this subject deserves. Academia and think tanks generate study after study, yet their findings don't reach the people who need to be reached.... [like climate scientists?]
The old news model is crumbling, while the Internet, for all its immense promise, is not yet ready to rise in its place -- and won't be until it can provide the nuts-and-bolts reporting that most people so take for granted that it escapes their notice.
This is a crisis that, with no exaggeration, threatens our democratic republic at its core. But you won't hear about it on your evening news, unless the message can be delivered in a way that corporate media have little choice but to report -- such as, say, the findings of a presidential commission.
It’s inconceivable, of course, that Rather or any other media big shot would ask former George W. Bush or any other Republican to lead such an effort. If Bush had ever entertained such an idea on his own, Rather would have led the charge against it as a huge intrusion on the media’s independence. But Rather is evidently comfortable with the idea of an Obama Commission on the news media — a sign just how closely journalistic liberals identify with political liberals.
The ills of journalism, as Rather sees it, are a subordination of the news product to the profit motive, and decay in the newspaper industry that threatens the nuts-and-bolts reporting that supports broadcast and much of the Internet.
A new media is growing up without government help or direction. Contrary to Rather’s argument, there are actually more news sources available to everyday citizens, not fewer, and the news is becoming less “homogenized” thanks to the Internet. When liberals like Rather ask for the government’s help, it usually means they don’t like the direction that the free market is headed.
And, if he wouldn’t trust a Republican president to fix the media, why should any of us trust a Democratic president with the job?
[This guy fabricated a story against a sitting President of the United States - and the MSM are still giving him air/print time.
The history of 'public' communication has been on of ever restricted public influence, with ever fewer and fewer 'owners' from book publishers for the few literate to radio station owners - a few per town at best, to TV which at one time limited editorial control down to three - count 'em; three - networks.
Now the internet has again allowed a free {of editorial control} forum for the competition of ideas {some junk - some not} - and the old guard hates that. Imagine; a democracy of the little people without the 'guidance' of our enlightened intellectuals.
Folks like Rather should be laughed out of town - but don't expect anything like that from the MSM - which for my entire adult life has been part of the problem, and nothing to be salvaged.]
READ MORE
No comments:
Post a Comment