An Aversion To "Real" News
This is strictly a commentary. Well, actually it is more like a butt-chewing. News broke over the wires a day ago about an incident that happened in China. Our regular readers know about this. The Chinese government, in an attempt to halt a protest, opened fire on a crowd of people and killed over thirty people (according to the newest numbers coming out of the Hong Kong news services). These people were unarmed, and protesting peacefully.
The media was slow to respond. The first people to grab it were bloggers. They ratcheted up the story, and made moves to get the word out as quickly as possible. We were one of the first ones to pick this up. By day's end, the print media was starting to grab it. The New York Times and Reuters were the first. Byt this morning, the story was sitting on A8 of the Arizona Republic's main section. (Not bad, but it could have been closer to the front; the initial mention was on A2, directing people to A8).
The visual media--the Alphabet Networks--have remained mute on the subject. Now, there can be specualtion until the End Times as to why the netowrks opted out of covering this story for people to see. I would like to say I am surprised, but I cnnot. I figured this would happen. This is a "non-story" as far as they are concerned. To many people--the three of us here at the Asylum included--this is a noteworthy story. To others, it is another "yawner." "What else is new with China?" the ask.
That is not the point. The point to this is we are witnessing another Tianamen Square, and the networks could care less. They blitzed the original Tianamen Sqaure, but this one does not manage to catch thier notice. Maybe it is because it was simply a group of peasants that were gunned down. Maybe it is because the Chinese government is spinning it, and have the entire town sealed from the outside world. (After all, if the chinese say it was not a big deal, who is CNN to question, right?)
The networks have been seriously lacking in what mainstream America would define as "relevant news." To mainstream America, this is relevant; we are trade partners with China. Do we really condone these actions? Are we going to turn a blind eye to this like we did over Rwanda? The media will not focus on the evil in this world, no matter who is perpetuating it. Eason Jordan has firsthand experience with this as CNN-Baghdad's old bureau chief, who admitted to covering up atrocities made by the Hussein regime.
We look to Sudan. The media barely pays it attention. We shout about the abuses by Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and the media does not even bat an eyelash at it. The Oil-For-Food scandal? Good luck getting the networks to pay attention to it. The continued abuses of those in Tibet by the Chinese government is lucky to get a highlight on a bottom-of-the-screen scroll. And I will not even begin to bring up North Korea, and the attention span of a nanosecond the networks have on that nation.
The simple fact of the matter is this: The networks could care less about what we think is news. This is not the sort of story they would prefer to run. They would rather have a soundbite contest over which Democrat had the best insult for the president today. They would rather use phony documents in an attempt to tear down a president. And God forbid they report anything good about what is going on over in Iraq; that might shift the public's approval of the president up, rather than down.
This outrageous, appalling fiasco in China is just one more nail in the coffin of the old, dying, decrepit media. They have no clue what news really is any longer. They have become so entrenched in their bias that it is no surprise when they argue there is no bias within the news. They are blind, deaf, and dumb to the progress of the world. They have no idea that a group people working together with computers could put together a more comprehensive news round-up better than their's on any given day.
Rip Van Winkle had better wake up soon, or they will find out the world has left them behind. They will also discover a new "medium" to cover. It is called being unemployed.
The Bunny ;)
This is strictly a commentary. Well, actually it is more like a butt-chewing. News broke over the wires a day ago about an incident that happened in China. Our regular readers know about this. The Chinese government, in an attempt to halt a protest, opened fire on a crowd of people and killed over thirty people (according to the newest numbers coming out of the Hong Kong news services). These people were unarmed, and protesting peacefully.
The media was slow to respond. The first people to grab it were bloggers. They ratcheted up the story, and made moves to get the word out as quickly as possible. We were one of the first ones to pick this up. By day's end, the print media was starting to grab it. The New York Times and Reuters were the first. Byt this morning, the story was sitting on A8 of the Arizona Republic's main section. (Not bad, but it could have been closer to the front; the initial mention was on A2, directing people to A8).
The visual media--the Alphabet Networks--have remained mute on the subject. Now, there can be specualtion until the End Times as to why the netowrks opted out of covering this story for people to see. I would like to say I am surprised, but I cnnot. I figured this would happen. This is a "non-story" as far as they are concerned. To many people--the three of us here at the Asylum included--this is a noteworthy story. To others, it is another "yawner." "What else is new with China?" the ask.
That is not the point. The point to this is we are witnessing another Tianamen Square, and the networks could care less. They blitzed the original Tianamen Sqaure, but this one does not manage to catch thier notice. Maybe it is because it was simply a group of peasants that were gunned down. Maybe it is because the Chinese government is spinning it, and have the entire town sealed from the outside world. (After all, if the chinese say it was not a big deal, who is CNN to question, right?)
The networks have been seriously lacking in what mainstream America would define as "relevant news." To mainstream America, this is relevant; we are trade partners with China. Do we really condone these actions? Are we going to turn a blind eye to this like we did over Rwanda? The media will not focus on the evil in this world, no matter who is perpetuating it. Eason Jordan has firsthand experience with this as CNN-Baghdad's old bureau chief, who admitted to covering up atrocities made by the Hussein regime.
We look to Sudan. The media barely pays it attention. We shout about the abuses by Mugabe in Zimbabwe, and the media does not even bat an eyelash at it. The Oil-For-Food scandal? Good luck getting the networks to pay attention to it. The continued abuses of those in Tibet by the Chinese government is lucky to get a highlight on a bottom-of-the-screen scroll. And I will not even begin to bring up North Korea, and the attention span of a nanosecond the networks have on that nation.
The simple fact of the matter is this: The networks could care less about what we think is news. This is not the sort of story they would prefer to run. They would rather have a soundbite contest over which Democrat had the best insult for the president today. They would rather use phony documents in an attempt to tear down a president. And God forbid they report anything good about what is going on over in Iraq; that might shift the public's approval of the president up, rather than down.
This outrageous, appalling fiasco in China is just one more nail in the coffin of the old, dying, decrepit media. They have no clue what news really is any longer. They have become so entrenched in their bias that it is no surprise when they argue there is no bias within the news. They are blind, deaf, and dumb to the progress of the world. They have no idea that a group people working together with computers could put together a more comprehensive news round-up better than their's on any given day.
Rip Van Winkle had better wake up soon, or they will find out the world has left them behind. They will also discover a new "medium" to cover. It is called being unemployed.
The Bunny ;)
posted by Syd And Vaughn | 9:38 PM
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home