Democratic Underground Latest Greatest Lobby Journals Search Options Help Login
Google

FILM AT ELEVEN

Printer-friendly format Printer-friendly format
Printer-friendly format Email this thread to a friend
Printer-friendly format Bookmark this thread
This topic is archived.
Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 12:51 AM
Original message
FILM AT ELEVEN
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 01:10 AM by NanceGreggs
FILM AT ELEVEN
By Nancy Greggs

I’m old enough to remember dozens of movies and TV show episodes that featured the ‘whistleblower plot’. They were formulaic but nonetheless exciting – ‘nifty little nailbiters’ as the critics would say.

The heroine (usually a vulnerable-looking but plucky young woman), having discovered some government or corporate malfeasance, would issue the ultimate threat: “I’ll go public with this!” And from there, the chase ensued.

After dodging the bad guys, our heroine finally ran breathlessly into a local TV newsroom or newspaper office and, depending on whether her carefully-guarded evidence was a file folder full of damning documents or a videotape, one of two scenes followed. A TV producer handed the tape to an underling and yelled, “Get this down to the control room stat – we go live with this in sixty seconds,” or, “Stop the presses, boys, we’ve got a new front page.”

“Going public” was the 20th Century version of running into a church and yelling “Sanctuary!” Once the facts of your story hit the front page or the six o’clock news, you were home free – rendered untouchable by the powers-that-be who could not deny their sins in front of a now-informed public.

But that was a bygone era, when journalists were interested in breaking stories of true public interest, a bunch of altruistic hooligans who were determined to get the truth out – the corporate sponsors, the full-page advertisers, and sleazy government officials be damned.

These days, we hear it over and over, the tattered, well-worn excuse: the public are simply not interested in what’s going on in government. They take no notice of torture bills, or how their tax dollars are being funneled into the pockets of corrupt politicians, organizations, or corporations. They go about their lives, seemingly unaware of the machinations that are destroying their country, their way of life, and their future.

I would beg to differ, and strenuously so. The public are not ‘seemingly unaware’; a vast majority of them are totally unaware. And the fault lies not with their lack of interest, but with the simple fact that true journalism is, for all intents and purposes, as dead as the proverbial doornail in today’s America.

The truth is out there. The facts, the statistics, the statements, the videotapes, the unsavory emails, the incriminating documents – all readily available to those who are willing to seek them out and present them to an audience hungry for real news.

But instead our present-day journalists – a term that is now an epithet rather than an honored title – have become a pack of old time flim-flam men, shilling for the corporation or political party whose favor they seek to curry, whose snake oil and shopworn wares they are all too anxious to sell.

While the internet has replaced the MSM for many, especially a new generation who rely on it solely as a source of information, the vast majority of the public look to TV news broadcasts and their daily newspapers – still living in the era when such sources actually delivered something of value.

In today’s media-driven world, our heroine of bygone days, armed with earth-shattering evidence of corporate or political wrongdoing, would never make it past the security guard. And if she did, her documents and/or her tapes would be ignored, laughed at, destroyed before her eyes – unless, of course, she had video footage of a runaway bride boarding a Greyhound days before the wedding, or photographs of a celebrity couple’s newborn child.

As We the People have learned, especially during the tenure of this administration, it is not that we have turned away from our desire to know the truth, but that those who were traditionally entrusted to tell the truth have turned away from us.

If there is one thing the current crop of so-called journalists have learned to do well, it is the ability to pass-the-buck of blame. They ask why they should be held responsible for their inability to act as a political watch-dog, or their lack of talent in ferreting out what is truly important and delivering it, unbiased and unvarnished, to the American public.

The response to that is a simple one: You took the job. And if you can’t perform the responsibilities that come with that job, resign. To be sure, you are expendable. And you are replaceable – maybe by some bright-eyed kid who’s waiting for our heroine to run breathless into a TV studio or newsroom somewhere, just so he can proudly yell, “THIS is the story, boys, and we’re going with it, because America has a right to know.”

A right to know; just another right that has fallen by the wayside in today’s 24/7 non-news coverage. A right that was not curtailed by government edict or newly established law, but simply eroded by a group of well-coiffed, well-dressed wannabees, too lazy to do their jobs, too stupid to recognize their own incompetence – and too self-absorbed to realize that along with dooming themselves to irrelevance, they are dangerously close to having doomed our democracy to extinction.

Film at eleven. Clothing provided by Designer-de-Jour. Brought to you by people who really don’t give a damn.


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
JeffR Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:04 AM
Response to Original message
1. But for the truth of this analysis
DU probably wouldn't exist. Thanks God for DU, thank God for the internets - that crazy series of tubes Al Gore invented. And thank God that Nancy Greggs is still ranting. There's so much left to rant about.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
UnityDem Donating Member (442 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 03:01 AM
Response to Original message
2. All news coverage is now Agenda Driven
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 03:04 AM by UnityDem
First, it was the success of talk radio.
Then, FoxNews brought it to a whole new level. I want "my news brought to me by people who think like I do and report the news the way that I want them to".
The story is that there is now no difference in reporting and agenda driven punditry/analysis.
There are no longer facts.
When it became accepted as perfectly acceptable for a news organization to become a POINT OF VIEW pundit, all was lost.
The Telcom Act of 1996 played a big role.
At one time, there was the 7-7-7 rule where one company could only own 7 tv, radio, newspapers.
Now, a handful of corps. own them all.
They decide what is presented, who presents it, and how it is presented/delivered.
The best thing about this for them is that it's now CHEAPER too.
They don't have to hire reporters to dig up stories.
They don't have to hire analysts because they will be PROVIDED to them by "foundations" (aka "think tanks").
Ted Turner and Bill Moyers have spoken about this. As has Phil Donohue and David Schuster and others.
Randi Rhodes may have summed it up best by saying, "the news has been cancelled".
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
mark11727 Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 08:36 AM
Response to Reply #2
5. and furthermore...
...I've noticed the line between news, editorial, and entertainment is becomming increasingly (and purposely) blurred.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 08:41 AM
Response to Reply #2
6. The Telecom Act of 1996
It's frequently forgotten, and I think should be mentioned in nearly every discussion about the failing of the MSM.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 08:46 AM
Response to Reply #2
7. Another angle I had not considered.
With the consolidation of news entities, the intrepid reporter can't say "if you don't run this I'll take it to someone who will", because his boss owns the other guy, too. I wonder if there is a blacklist out there, and if a journalist crosses the line he'll never work for any of the big five, meaning 95% of all jobs are closed to him. All that leaves is the alternative press and the internet, both dismissed as amateurs by the MSM.

How much of it is the journalists, and how much is the owners?
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
IWantAChange Donating Member (974 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 09:25 AM
Response to Reply #2
9. well said UnityDem
once 'Independent Journalism' was replaced by 'Corporate" the bottom line superseded all else. Murrow, Huntley, Brinkley and the rest must be shaking their heads -
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 07:38 AM
Original message
Off to the Greatest Page where this belongs...
Great rant, Nance (as usual!)
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
ms liberty Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 07:38 AM
Response to Original message
3. dupe - twitchy fingers! n/t
Edited on Thu Oct-05-06 07:38 AM by ms liberty
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Eric J in MN Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 08:07 AM
Response to Original message
4. What was this written in response to? NT
NT
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
NanceGreggs Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 06:21 PM
Response to Reply #4
14. It's been buggin' me (along with everyone else here) ...
... for years. But what set me off last night was watching Bill Moyers' "Capitol Crimes".

Through the full two hour airing, there was not a single fact stipulated that I did not already know -- thanks to DU, thanks to the internet, thanks to being able to watch non-US TV news broadcasts.

I just kept thinking to myself, "If I know these things, WHY don't my fellow citizens KNOW them, too?" The answer is clear: because the MSM doesn't cover anything of any true value anymore.

I'm a woman of 'a certain age', as we like to say. I grew up with TV news (my dad was one of the first TV cameramen in the country, so we had a television when NOBODY did, believe me.)

I remember when the TV nightly news in NYC -- national, local, sports, everything -- was covered in fifteen minutes, from 11:00 to 11:15 every night. That meant just the 'news' - no time for editorializing, slanting, spokespeople from 'both sides of the aisle' there to spin the day's events to fit a political agenda. JUST NEWS.

Over the years, especially lately (when we now have 24/7 news coverage on cable), it amazes me how many times I mention something to someone, such as the problems with Diebold voting machines, and the reaction is: "Oh, no, that can't be true. If it WAS true, I would have seen something about it on the TV news."

Too many people of my generation and older, who don't use the internet as their news source, are just totally in the dark about what's going on in their own country, and the world. And it's not because they DON'T WANT TO KNOW. It's because the corporate/poltically-infested coverage is wasting air-space, 24/7, with absolute garbage.

I am not a marketing genius (although I often claim to be in the privacy of my own home!), but if one network were to put on the REAL news every night -- no bias, no spin, just the facts, ma'am -- I guarantee the public would be glued to their coverage.

Just my humble opinion -- and I'm STICKIN' TO IT!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Ravenseye Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 08:54 AM
Response to Original message
8. "the public are simply not interested in what’s going on in government."
This quote chaps my ass, simply because it's innaccurate.

It's a poll question gone awry. The vast majority of people ARE interested in what's going on in government, whether they know it or not. Ask a person "Do you care about what's going on in government?" you will get many more answers of 'no', than if you ask "Do you care that the Department of Education is removing funding from your kids school which means that they won't be able to maintain it well enough to be safe for your child?"...You'll get more 'yes' answers to that one. People are very much interested in what's going on, even if they don't think they are. Whether it's gas prices, or their buddy being killed in Iraq, or the cleanup of the toxic dump a mile from his house, people care.

Another way this is abused is that they like to point out that the public prefers news about entertainment stories, or sports, above government or politics, or world events, and take this to actually show less of the important stuff. This is a total failure. Just because the first thing I check every morning is the sports page for news about my team, which I do, doesn't mean I don't care about what's going on in the world. It's strawman thinking. Just because someone cares about what trouble Paris Hilton is getting into, or what is coming up on the next season of Lost, doesn't mean that they also don't care about what's going on in Sudan. I see the same thinking on DU as well, but in reverse. Caring about Paris Hilton and Darfour aren't mutually exclusive.

Which leads to my final point. If people do care about what's going on, and the media doesn't show them because focus groups show that they care more about other things, then the media is in complete failure mode. Most industries need to accomplish specific goals in order to be successfull. Build a better widgit. For some, the goal is more ephemeral in nature. The goal of the MSM should be to inform the public about what is going on in the world. By not doing so, they are failing in their job. Informing the public is an important aspect of democracy, which is why Freedom of the Press is such a core aspect of this. The truth needs to be told, not because we can, but because we need it.

I need it.

Even if I turn to the sports page first.

Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
Pacifist Patriot Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 09:40 AM
Response to Reply #8
10. Wish I could recommend your response too.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
cui bono Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:31 AM
Response to Reply #8
11. So true... pollsters keep calling me now...
I answered one and now I get all sorts of calls. I keep trying to explain my answers, or give a response that's not on their list or one that's too long and involved for their tastes. The last pollworker kept having to ask someone about my answers. I could hear her saying "she said ______" or "but she wants to answer ______." Poor thing, she was already struggling just reading the questions - the Libertarian Party became the Librarians in this rendition of the survey. :D
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
thingfisher Donating Member (445 posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 01:45 PM
Response to Reply #11
12. all the news that isn't...
What we are talking about is the consolidation of power. A free press is a prerequisite to freedom. During the past twenty years there was plenty of warning about the erosion of the news medis as laws were being rewritten regarding media ownershi, etc. Mark Crispin Miller was one person who constantly spoke on the subject here in my native Baltimore.
We no not have a free society any longer, we have a well controlled society due in large measure to the homogenization of the media. When a corporation like GE owns a large segment of the media how can we expect journalistic objectivity? What we have is creeping fascism, the wdding of corporate and government power, as once explained by Benito Mussolini. In Amerika we call it privatization and free market capitalism.
Last night on the Bill Moyers show on PBS (there are pockets of real journalism scattered about still) we were treated to an analysis of the Jack Abramoff "scandal". The important mersage of the program was that while Abramoff may be out of commission for awhile and Tom DeLay's Christian testimony besmirched nothing will change the basic structure of corruption that is today the institutional modis operandi of government. Corporate interest is the sole driving force of policy today. No one represents the broader interests of the people because the people don't have the reserves of cash necessary to influence our elected officials. Oh yeah, we the people vote these scum bags into office based on their carefully crafted public image and campaign persona, but once in office a different dynamic takes over. A big part of the problem is caused by the constant pressure on public officials to raise money for re-election. This becomes the full time job of a politician which is often interupted by his official duties.
We cannot expect for things in Amerika to change as long as the structure of our electoral system depends on the ability of govenment officials to raise millions of dollars for campaigning.
Why not pass legislation requiring the media to provide an equal amount of time and resources to cover the candidates as a public service? Persoanl appearances would continue to be an individual responsibility but the vast amounts of cash required to mount effective media coverage could be dispensed with by providing free air time for meaningful debates and discussions on radio and tv both locally and nationally.
I know it is probably unrealistic to imagine that such a sweeping reform could occur in our profit driven society, but unless something is done on a radical scale Amerika will continue to be dominated and controlled only by people capable of the completely ruthless pursuit of power at any cost. Just look who's president!
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
zbdent Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 05:05 PM
Response to Reply #12
13. It's happening with Foley, we (DU and the like) have seen it for decades
the people who scream the loudest about something are likely to be the ones perpetrating the very crimes they have screamed about ...

Foley, the pedo ... "Conservatives" who hate the consolidation of the (liberal) media into the hands of the few, now have the media in the hands of the few ... them ...
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
RaleighNCDUer Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Fri Oct-06-06 04:59 PM
Response to Reply #8
16. Hey, I sorta like paris hilton.
I mean, for all that she is a rich spoiled bubble-head, she is at least trying to do things that she doesn't have to do. Getting parts in movies, doing her TV shows, modeling, cutting a record -- even if they aren't terribly good, they are things she doesn't have to do at all. She could go thru her whole life and never do a lick of work. I'll give her credit for that.

But i do wish I could see a little less of her on the news. News, she is not.
Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
The Wizard Donating Member (1000+ posts) Send PM | Profile | Ignore Thu Oct-05-06 11:31 PM
Response to Original message
15. The Fourth Estate
used to be democracy's watchdog, working to keep politicians and government officials somewhat honest. It has devolved into a fifth column working to shield corrupt officials bent on removing those freedoms the terrorists hate.
The news media ceased to be a viable source of information during the Clinton impeachment when a stained blue dress trumped hunting bin Laden. That's when I gave up watching news and also reading print media with skeptical pessimism. My news sources today are DU, The Daily Show, The Colbert Report Countdown, and Air America.
As we stumble through what could arguably be the worst era in American history we must learn how to recognize propaganda that passes as news, and notify the producers of such trash that their attitude toward the public is unacceptable. As the Soviet Union was winding down the citizens knew the difference between Official News (propaganda) and real news. TAAS, Pravda and Izvestia became a national joke. With each passing day more Americans are finding alternative news sources. The Internet genie is out of the lamp, and regulating it is more difficult than TV and broadcast media. So this is where the free exchange of ideas and information dissemination will be for the next few years until the folks with all the money figure out how to wreck it so as to rebuild in a manner in which they control perceptions. It's our perceptions that make us react to situations and decide to do what we do.
I await the next science fiction sequel to Fahrenheit 451, maybe about radioactive deathrays emitted from monitors when a particular series of key strokes is entered. Words like "honesty and trust" will automatically cause government snooping software to find your banking and medical records.
Maybe the town crier and troubadours will make a come back


Printer Friendly | Permalink |  | Top
 
DU AdBot (1000+ posts) Click to send private message to this author Click to view 
this author's profile Click to add 
this author to your buddy list Click to add 
this author to your Ignore list Fri Apr 19th 2024, 01:33 PM
Response to Original message
Advertisements [?]
 Top

Home » Discuss » Archives » General Discussion: Presidential (Through Nov 2009) Donate to DU

Powered by DCForum+ Version 1.1 Copyright 1997-2002 DCScripts.com
Software has been extensively modified by the DU administrators


Important Notices: By participating on this discussion board, visitors agree to abide by the rules outlined on our Rules page. Messages posted on the Democratic Underground Discussion Forums are the opinions of the individuals who post them, and do not necessarily represent the opinions of Democratic Underground, LLC.

Home  |  Discussion Forums  |  Journals |  Store  |  Donate

About DU  |  Contact Us  |  Privacy Policy

Got a message for Democratic Underground? Click here to send us a message.

© 2001 - 2011 Democratic Underground, LLC