RSS Feeds
Contact Us |
|
|||||||||||||
Columnists » Guest Column
Article rated a 2.7
by 7
users |
Sunday, February 17, 2008 6:15 AM CST
News is dead, and that should concern people
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
News is dead, and that should concern people
By DONNA WOOD
It was only a matter of time --- in this case, a very short time --- before Rupert Murdoch's control of the Wall Street Journal (WSJ) began shifting that venerable, stodgy, predictable, rightist business institution toward the ridiculous right.
The Journal has always leaned right in its editorial policies, but it has also established a long tradition of powerful investigative reporting. It was first, for example, to break the story of the tobacco industry's decades of efforts to enhance nicotine's effects in cigarettes and lying about it, knowing full well that nicotine was addictive. It was not the first to report on Enron's breakdown, but its subsequent stories uncovered details found nowhere else.
Before Murdoch bought the Sunday Times of London, that paper's Insight Team produced amazingly deep, rich investigative reports on topics of immense importance. One such report was an intense, detailed account of the origins and spread of thalidomide around the world --- the 1950s and 1960s pharmaceutical that was sold for anxiety but caused horrible deformities in infants. After Murdoch assumed control, however, the Insight Team was disbanded and the Sunday Times gave over more of its space to vapid entertainment and right-wing editorializing.
In December, Business Week reporter Bruce Nussbaum commented on the WSJ's new strategy: cut down on the amount of news in the newspaper, and increase the amount of commentary. In DowJones' own words, as it rolled out the new model in early January, the WSJ will focus less on "what happened" (from 50 percent of its coverage down to 20 percent), and more on "what it means." Unfortunately, in Murdoch-land, "meaning" isn't about solid analysis. It's about titillation, emotional outbursts, and bias dressed up as factoids.
Now the WSJ appears to be canceling its news-provision contract with CNBC in favor of hotlinks to the brand new, sexy, and breathless Fox Business News service, which Murdoch also owns. Neil Cavuto, a regular on Fox News, is now managing editor on Fox Business News. ABC correspondent Kim Landers reported that Cavuto aims to keep it simple for us "average Americans."
"None of this economist 'on the one hand and on the other hand' stuff," he says. That is, Fox Business News will not welcome discussion, debate, or controversy, and apparently will foster a simplistic view of a very complex reality. Ummm, what a surprise?
Landers reported also that Fox intends its coverage to be "friendlier to business, rather than focusing too much on corporate scandals." Heaven forbid the American public should learn what their corporations have really been up to! As an aside, Cavuto interviewed Dan Quayle (why, I don’t know) a few weeks ago on the current banking/housing/mortgage crisis. Cavuto reports on his Web site that Quayle said, "This is a free country. We are free to screw up and free to suffer the consequences." This, of course, is the guy who brought us gems like "It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
Many Wall Street Journal veterans have already bailed and more are certain to flee. Some, including editor Paul Steiger, have founded a fledgling investigating reporting service called Pro Publica, devoted to "deep digs" into current events, issues, and news stories --- the kind of work they used to do at the Journal. Others are just getting new jobs --- anywhere else.
Wherever Murdoch's long financial arm reaches, you can count on mindless entertainment and rightist editorializing in place of hard-core news. Murdoch is as nonpartisan as Fox News (which he owns) is fair and balanced.
No, I won't be making an argument for CNN, although when Ted Turner owned it, that argument could be made. Now that Time Warner has control, CNN too has gone skipping merrily down the path of plunging necklines for beautiful newscasters, Glenn Beck's milder version of Rush Limbaugh inanities, and endless reporting of the doings of or on behalf of Anna Nicole, Brittany, and Paris.
The truth is, we no longer have a free press in America. That essential bastion of freedom has buckled under the pressure of far-right moneyed conservatives who aim not just to bolster their billions but also to impose upon us their especially narrow and mean-spirited view of how things ought to be.
Friends, don’t be so worried about gays, guns, and gynecology. Be worried that our free press is now more myth than reality. If you're worried about Putin's Russia, you should be even more worried about what is happening right under your nose, here at home. Our lust for entertainment is crushing us; our "news" is just gossip.
The Journal has always leaned right in its editorial policies, but it has also established a long tradition of powerful investigative reporting. It was first, for example, to break the story of the tobacco industry's decades of efforts to enhance nicotine's effects in cigarettes and lying about it, knowing full well that nicotine was addictive. It was not the first to report on Enron's breakdown, but its subsequent stories uncovered details found nowhere else.
Before Murdoch bought the Sunday Times of London, that paper's Insight Team produced amazingly deep, rich investigative reports on topics of immense importance. One such report was an intense, detailed account of the origins and spread of thalidomide around the world --- the 1950s and 1960s pharmaceutical that was sold for anxiety but caused horrible deformities in infants. After Murdoch assumed control, however, the Insight Team was disbanded and the Sunday Times gave over more of its space to vapid entertainment and right-wing editorializing.
In December, Business Week reporter Bruce Nussbaum commented on the WSJ's new strategy: cut down on the amount of news in the newspaper, and increase the amount of commentary. In DowJones' own words, as it rolled out the new model in early January, the WSJ will focus less on "what happened" (from 50 percent of its coverage down to 20 percent), and more on "what it means." Unfortunately, in Murdoch-land, "meaning" isn't about solid analysis. It's about titillation, emotional outbursts, and bias dressed up as factoids.
Now the WSJ appears to be canceling its news-provision contract with CNBC in favor of hotlinks to the brand new, sexy, and breathless Fox Business News service, which Murdoch also owns. Neil Cavuto, a regular on Fox News, is now managing editor on Fox Business News. ABC correspondent Kim Landers reported that Cavuto aims to keep it simple for us "average Americans."
"None of this economist 'on the one hand and on the other hand' stuff," he says. That is, Fox Business News will not welcome discussion, debate, or controversy, and apparently will foster a simplistic view of a very complex reality. Ummm, what a surprise?
Landers reported also that Fox intends its coverage to be "friendlier to business, rather than focusing too much on corporate scandals." Heaven forbid the American public should learn what their corporations have really been up to! As an aside, Cavuto interviewed Dan Quayle (why, I don’t know) a few weeks ago on the current banking/housing/mortgage crisis. Cavuto reports on his Web site that Quayle said, "This is a free country. We are free to screw up and free to suffer the consequences." This, of course, is the guy who brought us gems like "It's time for the human race to enter the solar system."
Many Wall Street Journal veterans have already bailed and more are certain to flee. Some, including editor Paul Steiger, have founded a fledgling investigating reporting service called Pro Publica, devoted to "deep digs" into current events, issues, and news stories --- the kind of work they used to do at the Journal. Others are just getting new jobs --- anywhere else.
Wherever Murdoch's long financial arm reaches, you can count on mindless entertainment and rightist editorializing in place of hard-core news. Murdoch is as nonpartisan as Fox News (which he owns) is fair and balanced.
No, I won't be making an argument for CNN, although when Ted Turner owned it, that argument could be made. Now that Time Warner has control, CNN too has gone skipping merrily down the path of plunging necklines for beautiful newscasters, Glenn Beck's milder version of Rush Limbaugh inanities, and endless reporting of the doings of or on behalf of Anna Nicole, Brittany, and Paris.
The truth is, we no longer have a free press in America. That essential bastion of freedom has buckled under the pressure of far-right moneyed conservatives who aim not just to bolster their billions but also to impose upon us their especially narrow and mean-spirited view of how things ought to be.
Friends, don’t be so worried about gays, guns, and gynecology. Be worried that our free press is now more myth than reality. If you're worried about Putin's Russia, you should be even more worried about what is happening right under your nose, here at home. Our lust for entertainment is crushing us; our "news" is just gossip.
 |
More Stories from Columnists » Guest Column
hillaryc wrote on Feb 17, 2008 7:47 AM:
" wow, never have I seen this layed out so brilliantly. So, if we avoid the WSJ and Fox News or anything that Murdoch owns,, then and only then can we get the brand of news Ms Wood finds acceptable for the people. I guess you could consider her to be the minister of information in our new society "
rooster wrote on Feb 17, 2008 7:57 AM:
" It's funny to watch the left panic when they're loosing control. Here's an idea Donna - if you don't like it don't buy it. Or better yet if you think there's such a demand for "real" news start your own paper or network - Thats what conservatives did and it's been wildly successful. "
rooster wrote on Feb 17, 2008 8:01 AM:
" Why wouldn't the WSJ cancel it's contract with CNBC? Murdoch ownes FOX and The WSJ - It would be stupid to pay money to a competetor. "
East High Grad wrote on Feb 17, 2008 8:21 AM:
" News is dead, but infotainment, unfortunately, is alive and well. "
bob & weave wrote on Feb 17, 2008 10:38 AM:
" Did you know that I'm changing the above quote from h, to fit my way of thinking! I'll bet most readers aren't really feeling that. “But, to a thin-skinned politico, this could mean big war.” They adore WAR and like children playing in the neighborhood, attack on command the truth about the New York Times, as keenly reported by Donna Wood in this Guest Column above. This NEW form of free speech according to what h is writing about, lacks any form of tolerance, becoming a skirmish line- in-the sand, for the “ultra right mandaters,” who seem to see it as their job to police any dissenting thought. Now, before I step on the “Rights to Free Speech” of an other, especially those who seem quite willing to turn reality into the mindless drivel found on and in, the Nurdock properties of highly profitable cables & rags; let me be clear. It’s not a “NEW SOCIETY,” it really the society of our past: from yellow journalism to the altered Truthiness of the current parade of certified wacko actors” Their only mantra is to lower the taxes and shift those burdens to another generation of lobotomized followers, or those who are now so very, excited about FOX NEWS and the NEW look and feel of the WSJ! "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 17, 2008 11:49 AM:
" to Bob from Donna "The truth is, we no longer have a free press in America. That essential bastion of freedom has buckled under the pressure of far-right moneyed conservatives who aim not just to bolster their billions but also to impose upon us their especially narrow and mean-spirited view of how things ought to be." Do you seriously believe this tripe? One paper and news network has destroyed the free press of America.
Holy crap, I hope Murdoch doesn't buy the Disney channel and turn that into a mean spirited, right leaning ,brain washing network. Hannah Montana reporting from Iraq,,, Well, Shoot I would watch that "
Holy crap, I hope Murdoch doesn't buy the Disney channel and turn that into a mean spirited, right leaning ,brain washing network. Hannah Montana reporting from Iraq,,, Well, Shoot I would watch that "
rooster wrote on Feb 17, 2008 12:03 PM:
" Bob, What? Your post reads like an email that was created to get past a spam filter. Try writing again once you're sober. "
hawkiiis wrote on Feb 18, 2008 5:39 AM:
" I'm amused by Donna Wood's attempt to paint Fox and the WSJ as 'entertainment'. Could it be this writer despises the success of news outlets that aren't in the democrats back pocket? MSNBC is the most biased 'news' station there is. Maybe if Wood's mentioned Keith Oberman's lack of 'news worthiness' this article may have more credibility. This is exactly why humans should always do their own research for the facts, establish their own opinions, and not be a bunch of zombies. "
waterloo reader wrote on Feb 18, 2008 9:23 AM:
" Here's the part about Ms. Wood's editorial that I find funny. She didn't seem to mind when they liberals took over the mainstream network news stations. When our choices were more limited to the very liberal rantings of ABC, CBS and NBC, Ms. Wood wasn't up in arms. When the liberals took over the NY Times, the Washington Post, the Waterloo Courier and especially the Des Moines Red Star (Register) Ms. Wood and her ilk thought it was for the best. Now that there are some coverage options available for fair-minded people, Ms. Wood is has suddenly found religion about the slanted press. Nice of her to start with the right leaning press instead of the plethora of left leaning press outlets.
If Ms. Wood really wanted the press to remain neutral, she should have protested the mainstream press when they started to bend to the left. Ms. Wood is only outraged when there is a small piece of the press that leans away from her.
Here's a lesson for the UNI Business Ethics Chair: Next time, protest every wrong you encounter, not just the ones that go against your liberal teachings. "
If Ms. Wood really wanted the press to remain neutral, she should have protested the mainstream press when they started to bend to the left. Ms. Wood is only outraged when there is a small piece of the press that leans away from her.
Here's a lesson for the UNI Business Ethics Chair: Next time, protest every wrong you encounter, not just the ones that go against your liberal teachings. "
Bninwaterloo wrote on Feb 18, 2008 1:37 PM:
" I don't think it wise to call the dumbing down of the media an attack on freedom of the press. Based on this article, Ms Wood doesn't know what freedom of the press means, or what is actually protected under the law. Murdoch is free to make FoxNews and the WSJ as insipid as he'd like. And we are free to choose not to buy his product.
On MSNBC the other day Keith Olberman called President Bush a fascist. If Mr. Olberman lived in many countries around the world, he'd be jailed for saying such things. Not in America. Freedom of the press is secure, and enjoyable here in the US.
If an editor or newspaper owner makes a decision to not print something or takes a position one way or another, that's not censorship or an abridgement of anyone's rights. That's business.
You, Ms Wood, are suggesting that your vision of how things should be is the one that people should be reading and viewing.
Luckily for you, freedom of the press IS alive and well. "
On MSNBC the other day Keith Olberman called President Bush a fascist. If Mr. Olberman lived in many countries around the world, he'd be jailed for saying such things. Not in America. Freedom of the press is secure, and enjoyable here in the US.
If an editor or newspaper owner makes a decision to not print something or takes a position one way or another, that's not censorship or an abridgement of anyone's rights. That's business.
You, Ms Wood, are suggesting that your vision of how things should be is the one that people should be reading and viewing.
Luckily for you, freedom of the press IS alive and well. "
Phil wrote on Feb 18, 2008 3:53 PM:
" Too bad George Soros doesn't own a few newpapers and TV stations so we could get the truth in our news.
The point is media consolidation has been bad for Americans. We don't have to buy why Murdoch produces, and I don't. But it would be nice to find more outlets that do real reporting, dig deep, ask hard questions. But then the president's staff won't let you into the press group that travels on Air Force One. "
The point is media consolidation has been bad for Americans. We don't have to buy why Murdoch produces, and I don't. But it would be nice to find more outlets that do real reporting, dig deep, ask hard questions. But then the president's staff won't let you into the press group that travels on Air Force One. "
rooster wrote on Feb 18, 2008 4:09 PM:
" Cross, Joe & Phil - where are you? You're strangely silent on this one. Where are all the libs defending her? Maybe Murdoch secretly owns the Courier too and is censoring your posts! Could it be that they're part of the vast right-wing conspiracy that Hillary Rodham-Clinton talked about? "
rooster wrote on Feb 18, 2008 5:48 PM:
" Phil,
You complain about "real" reporting but you're the one that posted a link from a teen advice site a few weeks ago. Is that your idea of "real" news? Thats hilarious! You're right they probably don't let the "reporters" from Tiger Beat on Air Force One. "
You complain about "real" reporting but you're the one that posted a link from a teen advice site a few weeks ago. Is that your idea of "real" news? Thats hilarious! You're right they probably don't let the "reporters" from Tiger Beat on Air Force One. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 18, 2008 7:27 PM:
" Right on Phil,,, Does anyone know how many different newspapers are owned by the consortium that owns the Courier and are we all comfortable that editorial policy is being driven by hard reporting and not by corporate bias?
I agree with Ms Wood that much of the filler on all news shows and newspapers is (irregardless of bias) mindless drivel. But alas, the Courier has contests for who loses the most weight and who is the most eligable bachelor in the area and who makes the best Tenderloin,, so the trend is not a righty or lefty phenomenon but a profit driven one. Maybe the editors could tell us which edition of the paper ( subtracting out a huge world event like 9-11) is the best selling for the year. I would bet it is the one on the day after Thanksgiving with all the ads in it,,,, and that would tell you all you need to know about what the consumer is looking for in their news department "
I agree with Ms Wood that much of the filler on all news shows and newspapers is (irregardless of bias) mindless drivel. But alas, the Courier has contests for who loses the most weight and who is the most eligable bachelor in the area and who makes the best Tenderloin,, so the trend is not a righty or lefty phenomenon but a profit driven one. Maybe the editors could tell us which edition of the paper ( subtracting out a huge world event like 9-11) is the best selling for the year. I would bet it is the one on the day after Thanksgiving with all the ads in it,,,, and that would tell you all you need to know about what the consumer is looking for in their news department "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 18, 2008 7:37 PM:
" Another point is that the only reason the Courier lets us fools pontificate on here, is simple because they hope to draw more people to there paper and their website so they can charge more for their advertising so they can maximize their profit,, no different a reason then Murdoch has blondes in low cut dresses and GE lets MSNBC fly by the seat of their pants.
Profits is what drives it,,,,, If someone can make it in the mainstream with hard news reporting,, well they truly will be a revolutionary "
Profits is what drives it,,,,, If someone can make it in the mainstream with hard news reporting,, well they truly will be a revolutionary "
bob & weave wrote on Feb 19, 2008 3:11 AM:
" So h, your quote:
"I guess you could consider her to be the minister of information in our new society." That wasn’t a cynical response to Ms. Wood’s theory about the changing WSJ under the Murdoch banner? As if, she has the magic bullet of truthful news speak in today’s marketplace of ideas: and that you would agree with Donna, that “you can count on mindless entertainment and rightist editorializing in place of hard-core news” (from Murdoch) including, “especially narrow and mean-spirited view of how things ought to be.” Is that right h?
"
"I guess you could consider her to be the minister of information in our new society." That wasn’t a cynical response to Ms. Wood’s theory about the changing WSJ under the Murdoch banner? As if, she has the magic bullet of truthful news speak in today’s marketplace of ideas: and that you would agree with Donna, that “you can count on mindless entertainment and rightist editorializing in place of hard-core news” (from Murdoch) including, “especially narrow and mean-spirited view of how things ought to be.” Is that right h?
"
hillaryc wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:02 AM:
" Not a cynical reply Bob,,, perhaps sarcastic would be a better description,,, doesn't translate well to these message boards but then again i'm not trying to change the world just live in it. "
hillaryc wrote on Feb 19, 2008 7:05 AM:
" Bob,, I also believe this phenomona of mixing news and entertainment didn't start with Murdoch,,,,, think it started with Cronkite and Vietnam,,,, when many reporters started to think they were part of the story and not a reporter of it. Not saying that was Cronkite's agenda,,, just a result of him making the news, not reporting it "
Phil wrote on Feb 19, 2008 9:14 AM:
" rooster - you keep bring up the teen web site link - which I am sure you never read - which by the way was written by a legal expert. If want to criticize me at least read it first - otherwise your just being shallow and judgemental - and not fit to criticize that or any other post from anyone else. But closed minded = conservative. I wouldn't want to bother you with facts or viewpoints different from the ones you already have - you might actually LEARN something. But I forgot - you already know it all. "
(return of) joe wrote on Feb 19, 2008 12:01 PM:
" I'm all for conservatives having their own media outlets, but when "news" begins aligning itself with government and becoming a spokesperson for it and an apologist for it, we have a problem, folks. Murdoch had done exactly that. In short, he's, aside from paycheck-I assume-a government employee. "
rooster wrote on Feb 19, 2008 12:29 PM:
" Phil, I did read the link. I even tried to find other articles by the author - I couldn't find any. He writes one piece in a teen advice column and suddenly he's an expert worth quoting. Is that the level of journalism you and Prof. Wood are striving for? I really don't understand your frustration. I simply pointed out what you posted. "
Newswatcher wrote on Feb 19, 2008 2:53 PM:
" I'm certain Donna and you other lefties wouldn't agree to this line of thinking when reading the MAJORITY of newsprints that are Leftist in their reporting. On our local newsstands, USA Today and the Des Moines Register, are just the first 2 that come to mind (often the Courier qualifies, but it's getting better). There are hundreds more and please don't be so lame as to make me list them. You know they're out there. "
conservativeme wrote on Feb 21, 2008 2:20 PM:
" Phil, re-think your = sign or prepare to defend yourself. "
timberlake wrote on Feb 22, 2008 9:27 AM:
" If Rupert is trying to get the WSJ to provide a rebuttle of sorts to the NYT, then so be it. Kind of like the libs "fairness doctrine" put on by the private sector. Careful what you wish for. "
waterloo reader wrote on Feb 22, 2008 10:32 AM:
" Too often after reading an editorial by this author I am left wondering how her obvious left-leaning bias is brought into the classroom. Will she only accept quotes and research cites from left-leaning sources? Does a conservative student walk into her class with a pre-existing grading deficit? Is this the best instructor to be teaching business ethics to the industry leaders of tomorrow? When I hire UNI Business grads my first instruction is always the same: "Glad to see you got your degree, now let me tell you about something we call the "real world." "
bob & weave wrote on Feb 23, 2008 6:50 AM:
" I'm always gratified when a significant number of readers respond to a Guest “Opinion” Column, because it shows that there is an energized opinion in the community, and that's great! When a significant number of responses demagogy the author, I become suspect as to the motivation of the editor. Why would the Courier, who has given precious space to this guest and who has seemingly allowed editorial comment so far outside main stream thinking, literally poke-a-stick in the eye of a majority of their readers? This has become a mystery to me and maybe you too? Just to sell future editions won’t fly. Eliciting the ire of a regular subscription reader probably isn’t a good idea, either. So, maybe there’s a difference in the editorial versions of the paper; I don’t really know. I just believe, that by using the blog to draw excitable readers from the “Letters to the Editor” space, the Courier is consciously preserving their more conservative comment space away from those excitable reading rightist. Their instant gratification is of an entrenched and immovable thought pool, that to my mind goes nowhere. Thereby, allowing us tax and spend loving leftist, a convenient place to vent too; thereby placating the Courier’s loyal opposition into continued readership.
"
"
hillaryc wrote on Feb 23, 2008 7:44 AM:
" Bob,,, exactly,,, because the end goal in the newspaper business is to be able to charge the highest amount for your ad space, and if that produces great reporting great, if not well then you get the Register. If what your producing isn't producing ad revenue then you need to find something that will. "
Due to the amount of spam and negative comments received, the Courier implement a registered-user system for participation in the comment portion of our site. In doing so, the Courier reserves the right to ban any user(s) at any time without notice if we feel they are not following the terms of agreement.
DISCLAIMER: The Courier provides our story commenting feature in order to solicit feedback, debate and discussion on topics of local interest. Please keep in mind that civility is a necessary component of productive conversation. All blatantly inflammatory or otherwise inappropriate comments (i.e. vulgarity, marketing, etc.) are subject to rejection and/or removal. Comments will appear if and when they are approved. For a more in-depth explanation of our policy, please see our Rules of the Road. Thanks for reading, and thanks for participating.
~ADVERTISEMENT~
NEWS |
SPORTS |
COMMUNITY |
BUSINESS |
ENTERTAINMENT |
FEATURES |
OPINIONS |
OBITUARIES |
CLASSIFIEDS |
PRIVACY POLICY |
CONTACT US |
CARRIER PAGES
|
MAC wrote on Feb 17, 2008 6:38 AM: