Can we start calling them the Press again?

[blondeatlast]

Those DUers of a certain age (I was a political wonk from my early teens) may remember that it was Tricky Dick Nixon who insisted on calling the press, who were particularly hard on him (in other words, they asked him the right questions and followed leads) the "liberal media," not the press.

This was no accident--it was meant to imply that the press was trying to manipulate just as much as advertising and entertainment did. The scary part is that it worked. Both the "liberal" and the "media" memes stuck and have become common.

I suggest we start making a distinction. Let's start calling journalists we respect (I personally appreciate objectivity above all) the "press" and "journalists" once again.

Save the "media" meme for those with a clear agenda; Lord knows there are enough of them to go around. Don't even include the word "RW" with it--make the word media, in referring to journalism, carry the bias connotation.

Let's make "press" and "journalist" into respectable terms again.

[jokerman93]

1. Gasp!

You're not suggesting that we take back the lexicon are you? I'm shocked! Shocked! That would be subversive, possibly even seditious!

:patriot:

You have a very good point here, I think.

Have you seen this thread?

http://www.democraticunderground.com/discuss/duboard.php?az=view_all&address=104x4724153

The topic started out being about small acts of Resistance, but I think it expanded.

[blondeatlast]

3. Great thread, thanks. nt

[KharmaTrain]

2. It's Still Corporate Media

It's still owned by large corporations that see the $$$ before the truth. If they can make more money showing hours of runaway bride, that's what they will go back to doing. They also still rely on this regime and it's regulatory and political clout to allow them to further monopolize communications and protect their "investments".

The net, once again, led the story here. It was the quick spreading of information on websites that gave the networks the spine to attempt doing real journalism for a while. Also, the story moved so fast, it got out of control of the media outlets. The cable channels were expecting yet another storm show where their anchors would get blown around a bit, there'd be a day showing destruction and then it'd be on to the next show. This one didn't quite work according to script.

What you saw was reporting...relaying of the facts as they were happening. There wasn't time for spin when you see people dying around you. There isn't time for much spot anaylsis when you see the devestation. It's "do you believe me or your lying eyes?" However that time is now over.

Journalism requires investigating. It requires following up on a story to wherever it leads...bringing all the facts and parties involved to light. It's filling in the narrative and record to the tragedy as it continues to unfold. It's following the events as they fade from the headlines and maintaining a focus on demanding accountability.

My jury is out on if the corporate media has the ability to do this. MSGOP already has shown it can't...check out Larry Johnson's story at TPMCafe or see how Scarborough appeared to be heading back to the reservation on Mahrer's show last night. CNN stands alone in having a chance to break through the spin...but it'll have to fight its own Kyra Phillips and Daryn Kagens and their producers to do so.

I suspect the net will be where this story stays alive and the tough questions are asked. The corporate media will only come along once it becomes obvious they can't ignore it.

[rock]

4. No. If a man steals only when it suits his purpose

do you call him "honest" the rest of the time?

[jokerman93]

5. Maybe it's about taking back control

Maybe it's about taking back control of the game rules. If we manage to wrestle away control of the lexicon from the corporate media, then we decide who's message is reliable; we decide on whom we bestow legitimacy. We decide who is called "the press" or "a journalist".

I know there are countless citizens with all the right knowledge, skills and resources doing good investigative work and reporting right here on DU, and other reliable information hubs.

In the post-modern world perception is reality and the world is made out of words. Ask any Neocon you happen to see. Bottom line: whether we like to stretch that far or not, them's the new rules. And perception framed by language is the real battle ground for Human freedom against the ones in power: the global corporate robber barons of the twenty-first century.

So we have to take back control of the very language that frames society's perception. We the people need to start determining our own public agenda. We need to regain leverage over the language, and determine who gets to be the "legitimate" press. We should be able to say what course our nation takes, in what direction we believe humanity must take our new global civilization, should we not?

So how do we do that? How do we reframe public discourse from where we find ourselves today? What's our first move going to be?

I guess I'm just being long winded here because I think the issue is so important. Anyway, I agree with all the points you make. To me they're a good illustration of one of the problems we face as a people.

[blondeatlast]

6. It's a difficult call, I admit. But there are real journalists out there,

though few and far between. We may not always agree with them--I'm a big fan of an objective press; "the truth shall set you free," and all that.

The Nixon machine framed the press and sadly, they allowed themselves to be so manipulated it has become a legitimate threat to democracy.

Let's offer those who deserve it redemption.