My Mindblowing Chat w/the Exec. Editor of my local paper (ex LA Times)...

[Gloria]

(Part of this rant appears under a post about Clark's office opening here in Las Cruces, in the Politics/Campaign forum)

It opened on Monday. I had to call the paper because the number they gave was incorrect, of course. The local line is not up yet, so the number is 505-249-7152. They left out the area code, so of course, it will confuse anybody who wants to call (including me).

I wound up talking the Exec. Editor who said they would probably print a correction.

The guy was with the LA Times at one point....

He wanted to know my background and we chatted about polls. I discussed the sampling and how I had worked under Andy Kohut at Gallup, (now heading Pew).

Then we had a long conversation and he did his defense of the media, saying "Of course, you agree that there's nothing "nefarious" being done in the press and that the balanced view is the the one most heard"...I bit my tongue ...for awhile.....

He is against "clustering"--the local papers being homogenized by groups running the business end as one entity and intefering with local control.

He asked me about where I got my news, since I had told him I turned off American radio and TV, except for internet radio. He asked if I didn't get only one side, but I mentioned how I read things from all over and at DU, which was being cherry picked by the WSJ, news items from all sources were posted.

I talked about radio and how a liberal voice with top ratings would get bounced. He played so dumb, but I knew he was fishing around by his "innocent questions" about corporate viewpoints. I said of course there was politicization, with Clear Channel running rallies and not allowing their top rated host, Randi Rhodes, to be syndicated on their channels.

I brought up the bias/spin and he talked about how it didn't matter because the media was fragmented. I replied that there was an echo chamber and things said on FAUX (he laughed at that) were repeated in the mainstream press. I cited the spin on Gore post-debate and the "Gore is a liar" meme that became the whole damned campaign!!!

I brought up the manipulation of 911. He said he thought it was a good thing. I said, twice....I DON'T UNDERSTAND!!!
He actually thought after 911 people got energized and cared for awhile... and he came back with that crap about Americans wanting to know more. Whoa, I was really blown away by this one!!!!

So I then said if people were ready to know more and were "engaged" then why didn't we get more info what happened BEFORE 911? and why wasn't there more questioning about what the Bush secrecy was all about and why the Commission was doing a whitewash? And he asked me....WOULD IT SELL ADVERTISING?? And I responded--You bet it would sell advertising if people were told what had gone on...I mean, if they saw the list of all the questions....including, why didn't the planes go up??????? I'm still wondering why that didn't happen....

And then I said goodbye-I know you're a busy man....because I didn't want to jeopardize my getting the Clark correction!!!

Right now I'm feeling like I'm in never-never land. It was such a weird conversation, polite but laden with a mix of so many of the hidden (and not so hidden)messages and rationalizations we see every day thrown at us...

After that, my mother basically called me a traitor and we had our usual fight....oh boy.

[Gloria]

1. Hey, read this thread!! I just went through this crappy experience

banging my head against the wall with a representative of the US MEDIA!!!

[KoKo]

2. It's the Media "protecting their own interests." When he mentions

"advertisers" then it's his explanation. The advertisers support the newspapers/media. Not the subscribers. None of the Media could exist on "subscriptions" or "viewers" alone.

I don't know if you have seen many of the "Press Forums" that C-Span runs, but in every case it's members of the Print and TV Pundits on Panels discussing how they report. In every one I've seen where questioners in the audience ask about "media bias" or "why some stories get reported and others don't" the Press panel goes into "hyper-mode" defending themselves about how riteous they are, how balanced they are, about the "news cycle" (whatever that means) driving the news, and about how hard they work in covering stories. The real questions are never answered. These "Panels of Media Reps" exist just to deflect criticism from the Public. Almost like the multitude of RW Think Tanks i.e. Heritage Foundation, etc., have these "Open Forums" which C-Span shows which really never address the questions from the audience.

I've concluded we have to assume that the Agenda of the Owners/Advertisers will prevail in the "Established" Media today. It's the attitudes of the Owners/Advertisers which will have to change. The Pressure for Change will have to come from the Internet.

Thanks for trying to get some answers, Gloria! It's a revealing conversation.

[Gloria]

3. Yes, I have been aware of the "Business angle" on all this...

and I brought up NBC/GE, Murdoch etc in the conversation and the corporate interest and how News is now folded into the whole money ting, and no longer standing apart. That was in response to when he told me it was all "entertainment."

I also mentioned Brokaw and the 911-Saddam link being perpetuated and he did agree that was wrong...
But big deal...I don't see any outrage by him or the media at large, calling for a correction!!!!!

You see, these print guys think they are better than the TV/radio crowd...when in reality, they are NOT!!!

[tom_paine]

9. This was accurately prophesied in the 1976 movie "Network"

Which has, in fact, been so superseded by the grotesque Orwellianism of events that it is quite tame, but still an instructional watch from the Days of the Old American Republic...

See it if you haven't already.

[KoKo]

13. It's all "Entertainment" seems to be the new Press Excuse! Howie Kurtz

and others have been saying this for the last year. Americans are now supposed to believe another Lie.. Our Free Press is only their for Entertainment Purposes.

Disgusting isn't it. But, look at what passes for "news" on the cables.

That's why what you do, Gloria, on Buzzflash with the World Media Watc is so important. The Internet is the NEW Free Press. Let's hope it survives!

[BurtWorm]

4. This reminds me of Charlie Rose's interview with Amy Goodman

in which he condescendingly lectured her, twice, about how his buddies at CBS were not beholden to corporate interests or anything but the truth. Then he disingenuously invited her back for a debate with his pals someday on the subject. :eyes:

[Gloria]

5. Exactly. What I came away was with the feeling the guy was posturing

to salve his own conscience. That he was taking this "objective, neutral" view of what's going on, but actually, it's a mask for the fact that they are all sell outs.

They know they are sell-outs, but they posture and try to pretend they're taking the "high road"--but then the truth slips out as soon as they wonder if questioning 911 would mean Advertising Dollars!!!!!

Of course, it would....but in this case, the bucks are passed up...because they are afraid of getting abused by Bush.

The guy did tell me he thought the Patriot Act stuff was "bullshit"---but then said the "manipulation" of 911 was GOOD because Americans were "engaged."

Man, I need a drink!!!! ....as it all comes back to me now. It's amazing how much goes by so quickly...

[nolabels]

19. "to salve his own conscience" or to save the possiblity of a ..........

present or future six figure salary from going bye bye. You got to know these folks are scared as hell, a few bad reports, inuendo, etc. and their job is gone.

Good job, I am glad to see people around here got that good old moxie, maybe it will rub off on a few other people.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

6. Last Thursday I watched a panel of journalists on C-span

The subject was ethics in the media and I didn't hear the whole thing, but I think I heard most of it. They talked endlessly about the Jason Blair thing and the guy named Glass from years ago at the New Republic who also wrote fake stories.

But other than that, they didn't appear to think there were any problems! It was like they smugly concluded that if they just watch the younger ambitious journalists who might be tempted to make up stories, all would be super great with their field.

How could they be so blind to the fact that the major newspapers and the TV news have abandoned journalistic ethics and they have no credibility because they have reported false facts repeatedly?

I wish I could understand the whole thing too. It is like there is an Iron Curtain of Denial that has gone up in this country and you can't even have a sane discussion with the people that have put themselves behind it.

[tom_paine]

10. I call it, "Living Behind the Televised Curtain of Imperial Amerika"

What do you think?

[BurtWorm]

11. That's exactly right. Talk journalistic ethics and they all point at Blair

and Glass. Talk about a whole class of people who do not get it. It's ironic--or tragic.

[Gloria]

18. CalamityJane, I saw that panel, too....They just sat there in their

bubble, in denial.

Smug is the exact word to use to describe them all.

There was not one ounce of passion or desire to get to truth in any of them. The blood has been suck out of their veins and they act like pod people.

There was not one Seymour Hersh, Greg Palast, or Robert Fisk among them.

[tom_paine]

7. Yes, sea-changes in mores are normal over time

Sea-changes that are unnaturally brought about by Orwellian propaganda and infiltration and bullying and...well you get the idea...are more grotesque.

But it's funny, because what you saw, Gloria, was a clear example that a remarkably small number of people are required to "redefine" "coventional wisdom" or "political correctness". The others merely drift along like flotsam in the wake of a big boat.

The mores have changed around him, and he either won't noticed or is incapable because he, like all human beings, is handicapped by denial of unpleasantness...and the Bushevik unpleasantness may run deeper than anytime in a century, or perhaps in all American History (though I am not ready to stand behind that statement 100%, just speculating).

The psychology of what I like to call Goebbels v2.0 is much more subtle and nuanced than the original...because it HAS to be, given the era and the fact thaty old forms of Totalitarianism have all been discredited.

[SpaceCatMeetsMars]

12. Hey, we were both writing about denial at the same time, Tom

That seems like a big feature of this type of conversation. It is frustrating because it feels like the person you are talking to has already dismissed your point of view ahead of time. It's like they must say to themselves, "Oh I can ignore this person's argument, they are just one of those angry Democrats or one of those people that go online for their news!"

[bpilgrim]

8. as for ads...

we have served up over a million just this summer...

and folks do want MORE info since 911 it's a shame we can't get it here and have to go abroad - thank gore ;->

i am trying to write an ebay ad to build a 'new global media outlet' for the highest bidder... as a way to raise awareness and i hope to do it soon too but i ain't the best of writers/marketeers, more of a geek.

anyways...

thanks for sharing :toast:

it is interesting how everyone - even the media - wants to KNOW where we get our info. well at least my circle do.

http://GlobalFreePress.net is a prototype of what 1 tech and a few posters can do very part time... imagine what we could do if we had their resources.

practically every section pulls in contextual headlines from around the world every 30 min or so - thanks google ;->

and we - all of us collectively - are having an impact :bounce:

peace

btw: i am going to direct the e-bay ad to g. soros and his $$$ ilk, whish me luck :hi:

[Nadienne]

14. Grrr!

Frustrating!

I tell my coworkers, "The media is bought! What determines news is money!"

They say, "Nuh-uh, no, it's not!" Their source, of course, is the media! Would the media claimed to be biased?

Shoulda told them about the embarassing Reagan documentary that they won't see because the customers (as opposed to the info-seekers) bitched.

[blm]

15. Sounds like my battles with the op ed editor here in SC.

Unfortunately I always have to speak to him without revealing my name and i think that diminishes the impact, as it makes me seem more tinfoily.

I like how you always remain calm when you go after these folks, Gloria, even though you're steaming on the inside. I get a bit too hepped up after talking awhile. heh.

[Gloria]

17. Trust me, I'm not that calm....I actually ended the conversation

because I was about to blow a gasket with they oily, dulcet-toned SOB.

And because my mother was beginning to make noises outside my door..
And then I blew my top with her...

[Gloria]

16. I forgot, but he asked me if I had any journalism background...and

I told him I once wanted to be one, but I wasn't BLONDE. I told him I had worked for the Cornell Daily Sun, and that I was now doing the World Media Watch for Buzzflash.com and had done Media reviews before I got so sick of watching the stuff on cable!

That's when we got into where I got my news etc. (turning off the radio, etc.)

[SoCalDem]

20. It's all about public perception..

"Most" people only read the paper to see what's on sale, who got busted,who won the game,what's on tv tonight,or to read the comics... and they may glance at the front page, but probably most do not even follow the story to the jump page..

Editors know this, and they rely on local advertising for them to pay their employees and make a buck.. They will NEVER EVER take a controversial stance by themselves.. It's the wolf pack mentality.. No one wants to go alone.. Once someone is brave enough, the rest will follow, but getting someone to take that first step is the hard part.. They cannot risk alienating their advertisers, or their ass is on the line..

Since most papers are owne4d by a few powerful people, they do not have the luxury of "going somewhere else".. If they screw up at one paper, they are blackballed by the whole organization.. They are scared... and they are complacent..

[joanski01]

21. Thanks, Gloria, for

such an interesting thread. I remember when you used to do the Media Watch, but got sick of it. But I, for one, was grateful that I could read your writeups and not have to actually watch that stuff. Thanks.