MSM

[arwalden]

Okay... I just have to say it.

This "MSM" acronym is the most idiotic meme I've heard yet. I sincerely hope it's use is just a fad that passes quickly. It just sounds silly.

I hold no illusions about the fact that the depth and breadth of coverage that American media gives to certain topics sucks, but shitty reporting doesn't equal a conspiracy.

It seems that some people believe that every journalist in the country meets on alternate Wednesdays and they all decide how they're going to cover the news (or not cover it.)

It falls right in line with the belief that we're up against comic book super-villains. Somehow these people feel more important or noble if they're fighting a huge, secret conspiracy. They've seen too many action-thrillers, I think.

Okay. I feel better now. Thanks for listening.

-- Allen

[roenyc]

1. What does MSM stand for? nt

[Deja Q]

2. Okey dokey then. How does this sound?

M$M

:evilgrin:

You do have a legit point; but having been atypical and tuning into the nightly news and NPR of late, all the stations are increasingly one-sided and tantamount to a flock of parrots: all screeching the same ear-bleeding noise.

[whistle]

3. MSM? What does that stand for?

[mhr]

4. Main Stream Media = MSM

eom

[rodeodance]

5. It is a convenient term for the lack of investigative jounalism, but I and

others know that there are good reporters out there, but on the whole, much of what we read is sensationalist and lazy!!

[bryant69]

6. We all want to mythologize our lives

To live as big as possible--so it is more enjoyable to imagine some sort of secret cartel of evil doers screwing us because they are evil.

On the other hand there are structural problems beyond lazy reporters--such editorial fiat. If reporters learn that doing labor stories don't fly, they learn not to do labor stories.

Bryant
Check it out --> http://politicalcomment.blogspot.com

[Warren Stupidity]

7. go read chomsky

on manufacturing consent. It does not require wednesday meetings, even bi-monthly. It is simply commonality of interests by those who own the media companies with the corporatist Establishment.

We had the NYT, supposedly the center of the 'liberal establishment' beating the drum for war in Iraq, they did have some good solid reporting on the bullshit coming out of the bush administration in the run up to the war, but it was for the most part buried below the fold or in the back pages of the Times while the crap from the pro-war reporters ran on the front page. They owners of the media have a stake in the 'system' and they are not, for the most part, progressive in their viewpoint.

You have the white house press corp that has learned that if they ask tough questions they will lose access. Guess what? For the most part they stop asking tough questions. They aren't getting pressure from their employers to rock the boat, quite the contrary. The journalists are in many cases 'on our side', but they have mortgages and college tuition etc too so they do what they are told to do and act so that they keep their jobs and get promoted.