9.30.2002
Oh... and something else I was pondering a few moments ago. There was one comment on the video that kept sticking in my head, where the woman was saying that all the media outlets were blitzing the innaguration (or coronation as per the sentiment of some of the protesters), and only gave 10 minutes or so to the protesters, and never gave any depth to the issues they were protesting; portraying them almost in caricature. I think that it is a common and long-lived misconception that the media should be fair and unbiased. This is certainly not the case. Major media outlets are nothing more than the video news equivalent of Top 40 radio. Replete with its roster of pin-up starlets and poster boys, driven by ratings and the bottom line. It should be looked at as nothing more. To do so is to mislead yourself.
At the lower levels of field reporters and anchor-people (a topic for further discussion) there is a noticable liberal slant to the topics covered and the manner in which they are covered. At the upper echelons of the network top brass there is just as large a conservative slant. This doesn't get the same volume of press that the lower level gets, because it is less noticable, but it is there more in a behind the scenes way. News stories are chosen and the delivery is fine tuned toward a target audience that has all the demographics of the more familiar music industry. You can see the sterotypical slots that are filled...
There is the serious, experienced alpha-male anchorman who is in his 50's or early 60's. Dark hair with lightening roots (they're hoping he'll silver, no doubt), dark suit with a dark or bold colored power tie. Sybolizes and implies steadiness and sincerity. Induces trust.
Then there is the Red-suited Beta-female. Intelligent, or at least written that way. Asks tough questions, yet touches interviewees reassuringly at moments. Counterpoint to the Alpha-male. Panders to the female demographic. Strong, a little overbearing, but that is what propelled her to this place.
There is the boisterous, bouncy, good-looking female. Surgically enhanced to attract the 16-25 male demographic and make otherwise boring subjects more palatable. No real depth or meaning to any of her stories, but that is not what she is designed to do. Tries to compete with the Beta-female, but doesn't quite pull it off. Not as confident, alternately much too overbearing and not nearly strong enough. Perhaps a Beta-female in training.
This lower level female can be replaced interchangeable with a similarly-suited male, with a few changes. The stories and content do not change, however.
The low ranks consist of a host of bottom feeders, picking up any story they can and trying to make it look interesting. There are comedian reporters (with varying levels of success), "Ensign Expendable" reporters sent to battlefields to catch the news (and shrapnel) "as it happens" and no-namers that are just happy to have their stage names blasted across the nation.
"for CNN at the White House, this is Rock Hudson reporting"
Anyhow, this serves to restrict the flow of "truth" from any particular event. Other outlets try to pick things up, but without the funding or the resources of the larger networks, there is a gap. There is also serious slant to the stories. Much worse than from the "mainstream" media. Many of these outlets are nothing more than political platforms for a disenfranchised few. They have their say, but tend to discredit themselves in the process. It is really a buyer beware market.
So, in conclusion. There is no way to really know what EXACTLY is happening, in regard to news. It comes down to which version of truth you personally subscribe to, and beyond that it matters little because they are all false.
Just something to think about.
"From the impenetrable fortress of logic and sanity, Jeff Green, reporting"
At the lower levels of field reporters and anchor-people (a topic for further discussion) there is a noticable liberal slant to the topics covered and the manner in which they are covered. At the upper echelons of the network top brass there is just as large a conservative slant. This doesn't get the same volume of press that the lower level gets, because it is less noticable, but it is there more in a behind the scenes way. News stories are chosen and the delivery is fine tuned toward a target audience that has all the demographics of the more familiar music industry. You can see the sterotypical slots that are filled...
There is the serious, experienced alpha-male anchorman who is in his 50's or early 60's. Dark hair with lightening roots (they're hoping he'll silver, no doubt), dark suit with a dark or bold colored power tie. Sybolizes and implies steadiness and sincerity. Induces trust.
Then there is the Red-suited Beta-female. Intelligent, or at least written that way. Asks tough questions, yet touches interviewees reassuringly at moments. Counterpoint to the Alpha-male. Panders to the female demographic. Strong, a little overbearing, but that is what propelled her to this place.
There is the boisterous, bouncy, good-looking female. Surgically enhanced to attract the 16-25 male demographic and make otherwise boring subjects more palatable. No real depth or meaning to any of her stories, but that is not what she is designed to do. Tries to compete with the Beta-female, but doesn't quite pull it off. Not as confident, alternately much too overbearing and not nearly strong enough. Perhaps a Beta-female in training.
This lower level female can be replaced interchangeable with a similarly-suited male, with a few changes. The stories and content do not change, however.
The low ranks consist of a host of bottom feeders, picking up any story they can and trying to make it look interesting. There are comedian reporters (with varying levels of success), "Ensign Expendable" reporters sent to battlefields to catch the news (and shrapnel) "as it happens" and no-namers that are just happy to have their stage names blasted across the nation.
"for CNN at the White House, this is Rock Hudson reporting"
Anyhow, this serves to restrict the flow of "truth" from any particular event. Other outlets try to pick things up, but without the funding or the resources of the larger networks, there is a gap. There is also serious slant to the stories. Much worse than from the "mainstream" media. Many of these outlets are nothing more than political platforms for a disenfranchised few. They have their say, but tend to discredit themselves in the process. It is really a buyer beware market.
So, in conclusion. There is no way to really know what EXACTLY is happening, in regard to news. It comes down to which version of truth you personally subscribe to, and beyond that it matters little because they are all false.
Just something to think about.
"From the impenetrable fortress of logic and sanity, Jeff Green, reporting"
< 22:55 >< /j >
