RightNation.US
News (Home) | Righters' Blog | Hollywood Halfwits | Our Store | New User Intro | Link to us | Support Us

RightNation.US: Can Journalism Be Saved? - RightNation.US

Jump to content

Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

Can Journalism Be Saved? Rate Topic: -----

#1 User is offline   Martin 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 8,103
  • Joined: 02-July 03

Posted 13 February 2020 - 04:40 PM

The article will not permit me to cut and past text, so I shall provide a link and transcribe quotes from it.


Can Journalism Be Saved?

by Nicholas Lemann, New York Review of Books

https://www.nybooks....alism-be-saved/

To summarize, Lemann says that journalism can be saved by government and should be, since journos have lost so many jobs and so many newspapers have gone out of business. Here is his conclusion:


Then, there is another option, imperfect like all the others, for saving journalism: Direct government subsidy. Almost all American journalists react to this idea with a strong, visceral recoil, especially now. But, the severity of the situation demands subjecting our automatic assumptions to more careful scrutiny. Government support can be structured in many different ways; great portions of the independent truth-seeking activity in the United States are funded by the government, reasonably successfully, despite enormous built-in potential for political interference.


A 2009 report by Schudson and Leonard Downie, Jr., former executive editor of the Washington Post, suggested establishing a Fund for Local News, which would distribute money to appointed state boards that would review application from news organizations. These could be newspapers, radio or TV stations, websites, startups--anybody who could do good work. The boards would make irrevocable, multi-year grants, based on the applicants' specific plans about what to cover, and could renew the grants (or not), based on the quality, reach and influence of the coverage they funded. The media reform group, Free Press, in a report published last year, called for the establishment of a Public Interest Media Endowment, which could distribute its funds either to state or local entities or to the Corporation for Public Broadcasting, with the requirement that the funds support original local reporting. Victor Pickard, in Democracy Without Journalism?, calls for the creation of a government-funded or -owned, employee-controlled category of local news organizations.


What has happened in journalism in the twenty-first century is a version, perhaps an extreme one, of what has happened in many fields. A blind faith that market forces and new technologies would always produce a better society has resulted in more inequality, the heedless dismantling of existing arrangements that had real value, and a heightened gap in influence, prosperity and happiness between the dominant cities and the provinces. The political implications of this are painfully obvious in the United States and elsewhere: In journalism, the poorer, the more nativist, the angrier parts of the country (which vote accordingly) are the ones where journalism can't deliver on its public promise because of its severe economic constraints. Journalism is a case in which it's going to take a whole new set of arrangements, and a new way of thinking, to solve the present crisis.


++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++++

I hardly know where to begin to analyze Lemann's argument. For one thing, nowhere in his column does he mention the news media's loss of credibility, well-documented both by Gallup and the Pew Center. For another, he does not ask what the "angrier parts of the country" are angry about. To answer a question he did not ask himself, one of the main things they are angry about is federal bailouts for industries which the public believes deserve to fail because their products and services are not worth what they charge. Finally, is Lemann deluded enough to believe that the public will trust a federally-funded and therefore federally-controlled news media when that public trusts neither the federal government or the news media? Won't the public see government-employed journos as government shills?

0

#2 User is offline   Rock N' Roll Right Winger 

  • Pissing off all of the right people
  • Group: Silver
  • Posts: 33,276
  • Joined: 14-October 03

Posted 13 February 2020 - 04:53 PM

HELL NO! LET IT DIE!

"Journalism" really means to lie, spin, omit facts and mislead to manipulate/engineer public opinion to promote the progressive agenda.

"Journalists" are NEVER to be considered to be "reporters".
0

#3 User is offline   Severian 

  • Order of the Seekers for Truth & Penitence
  • Group: +Gold Community Supporter
  • Posts: 15,390
  • Joined: 14-February 04

Posted 13 February 2020 - 05:46 PM

Yeah, the only way to make "journalism" worse than it is is to get government involved in propping it up. Leni Riefenstahl would be pleased.
0

#4 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,347
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 13 February 2020 - 06:51 PM

Journalists have, at least in the modern era, gotten WAAAAY too full of themselves.

FIRST OFF, let's dispense with the ASININE notion that journalism is the "Fourth Estate". Bullscheisse. It's NOT the Fourth Estate. It's not ANY estate. Historically, the "Press" was never - NEVER - any part of the Estates of the Realm system aka the Ancien Regime as the frogs would say.

(The one good thing the 'Estate' system DID give us was the concept of 'separation of powers'. Medieval Christendom had three estates: King+Queen+Clergy, Nobles (Rich landowners), Burghers (Merchants and professional tradespeople. This loosely translates to 3 co-equal branches of government, though I could also argue this applies only to Executive + Congress, with the Senate being the Nobles and the House representing the Burghers and the judiciary being (originally meant to be) something completely independent. )


YES, the "press" IS mentioned in the constitution... but as a (mere) right in the bill of rights... NOT as any sort of Office/Station/Estate/Whatever. YES, there are 1A rights just as there are 2A rights... that accrue to EVERYONE. *I*, by way of 1A, have the print/type/post what I think, as do we all. A 'Journalist' is no more and no less than that, except that some will say/print whatever for pay which puts them on the same level as certain other professions who will do whatever for pay.

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 13 February 2020 - 06:55 PM

0

#5 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,347
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 13 February 2020 - 06:53 PM

duplicate. I hit 'reply' rather than 'edit'

This post has been edited by Dean Adam Smithee: 13 February 2020 - 06:54 PM

0

#6 User is online   gravelrash 

  • I wish they all were punk rock girls
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 16,383
  • Joined: 24-June 03

Posted 13 February 2020 - 07:58 PM

State-run media as "public-private partnership" is embodied in PBS, CBC, BBC.
0

#7 User is offline   Noclevermoniker 

  • Wire Dachsies Matter
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 17,852
  • Joined: 13-November 03

Posted 14 February 2020 - 09:28 AM

"journalism" should only be offered as a graduate level program, with a prerequisite bachelor's degree in a hard science or engineering.

If most of these twerps even understood the Scientific Method and First & Second Laws, they'd be a lot more skeptical of anyone's claims - regardless of the subject.
0

#8 User is offline   RedSoloCup 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 7,721
  • Joined: 05-June 15

Posted 14 February 2020 - 12:20 PM

Nope.

This turd can't be polished.
0

#9 User is offline   BootsieBets 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Silver Community Supporter
  • Posts: 733
  • Joined: 13-August 18

Posted 14 February 2020 - 12:28 PM

When I read the headline, I thought this was going to be an article about how to save journalism from itself, i.e. it has become mostly nothing more than a propaganda wing of the left and does not give a balanced narrative. Any story other than that of a doggie getting adopted from the local shelter is totally biased toward the left, and they donít even try to hide it anymore.

So, no I donít think journalism can be saved and I also donít think the current state of journalism should be saved! Journalism must be fair, unbiased and report facts, not opinions. Most modern journalist believe it is their responsibility to steer people to their way of thinking and that way is becoming more and more skewed to the left.



My link
0

#10 User is offline   kestrel 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 2,085
  • Joined: 22-January 05

Posted 14 February 2020 - 05:39 PM

View PostBootsieBets, on 14 February 2020 - 12:28 PM, said:

When I read the headline, I thought this was going to be an article about how to save journalism from itself, i.e. it has become mostly nothing more than a propaganda wing of the left and does not give a balanced narrative. Any story other than that of a doggie getting adopted from the local shelter is totally biased toward the left, and they don't even try to hide it anymore.

So, no I don't think journalism can be saved and I also don't think the current state of journalism should be saved! Journalism must be fair, unbiased and report facts, not opinions. Most modern journalist believe it is their responsibility to steer people to their way of thinking and that way is becoming more and more skewed to the left.



My link

I read your link and I think you're right. They are simply "cocooned" in their mindset..I would add that Journalism has taken on an Evangelistic Group-think quality..That's what keeps them in their Bubble (Church) its a matter of faith for them.
Kestrel...

0

#11 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,347
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:04 PM

View PostBootsieBets, on 14 February 2020 - 12:28 PM, said:

When I read the headline, I thought this was going to be an article about how to save journalism from itself, i.e. it has become mostly nothing more than a propaganda wing of the left and does not give a balanced narrative. Any story other than that of a doggie getting adopted from the local shelter is totally biased toward the left, and they donít even try to hide it anymore.

So, no I donít think journalism can be saved and I also donít think the current state of journalism should be saved! Journalism must be fair, unbiased and report facts, not opinions. Most modern journalist believe it is their responsibility to steer people to their way of thinking and that way is becoming more and more skewed to the left.

My link


I think 'journalism', strictly speaking, will ALWAYS be around. There will ALWAYS be people willing to put their thoughts and observations into words for others to consume in the free marketplace of ideas.

But, as I alluded to in another post, let's just GET OVER the idea that - with the rare exception of certain things engraved in stone on Mt Sinai, or part of the Septuagint etc - let's just GET OVER the idea that there's any 'special' about putting words onto paper or reading them on the air. Being a journalist and being a prophet/Oracle AIN'T the same thing.
0

#12 User is offline   zurg 

  • <no title>
  • Group: +Copper Community Supporter
  • Posts: 30,242
  • Joined: 19-October 09

Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:44 PM

Direct government support of media would automatically mean direct support and control by the mostly leftist Deep State, because they would be the ones coming up with criteria for distribution of the money. Theyíd present two faces: one to the media (extreme leftism) and one to the voters (attempt to look as politically noncommittal as possible, that is, only medium leftist). The outcome would be NPR on steroids without even an attempt at being fair. Thereís no doubt that it would we worse than Pravda.
0

#13 User is online   Dean Adam Smithee 

  • School of the Cold Hard Facts
  • View gallery
  • Group: Platinum Community Supporter
  • Posts: 22,347
  • Joined: 11-December 04

Posted 14 February 2020 - 06:54 PM

View Postzurg, on 14 February 2020 - 06:44 PM, said:

Direct government support of media would automatically mean direct support and control by the mostly leftist Deep State, because they would be the ones coming up with criteria for distribution of the money. Theyíd present two faces: one to the media (extreme leftism) and one to the voters (attempt to look as politically noncommittal as possible, that is, only medium leftist). The outcome would be NPR on steroids without even an attempt at being fair. Thereís no doubt that it would we worse than Pravda.


I like that we DO have gov't run: "Air America" on shortwave (does it still exist?) and AFRS. But that's as far as I'll go.
0

Share this topic:


Page 1 of 1
  • You cannot start a new topic
  • You cannot reply to this topic

1 User(s) are reading this topic
0 members, 1 guests, 0 anonymous users