Obama Will Be The DEATH Of The Traditional Media

[Beetwasher]

As well as the GOP.

With numbers like this:

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2009/2/9/74530/76509/517/695113

After what was universally hailed as a HORRIBLE week for the President by every gum flapper in the traditional media, the public is not fooled AND Obama is JUST getting started on his PR push for the stimulus.

There will come a point (if it hasn't happened already) that the disconnect will be too much and the Traditional Media will become completely irrelevant.

WE ARE THE MEDIA. We don't need the Old Media anymore. We've gone around, over under and through it. It's over and will go the way of the GOP; whimpering into the dustbin of history.

[Maven]

1. No he won't.

Sorry, mass media outlets aren't going anywhere.

[Beetwasher]

They Will Become More and More Irrelevant

As they continue to peddle their bullshit and fool no one. Either they will adapt or die. Some will still be around, but their influence will keep diminishing.

[bdamomma]

6. oh, I want to see their numbers drop in the ratings.

[Solomon]

15. It started when the public finally could see that the media helped lie

us into war.

[Kahuna]

3. Nonsense. Every day they are on my TV complaining about a loss

in viewership and or readers.

[Maven]

9. When you're ready to devote your time to traveling around the world

and reporting the news, let me know.

There are reasons certain "big institutions" exist, and that is to do what lay individuals don't have the resources or expertise to do.

[quantass]

4. Especially if you can Stir Fry it and serve it up hot to a Fast Food craving nation.

People want things quick and in bite sizes regardless of its nutritional value....that is the media and its willing audience zombies...Internet has changed things considerably though.

[Maven]

10. I agree,

The internet has changed things considerably, and traditional media has tried to co-opt it a little bit.

But the same people who are talking about the end of traditional media on this thread are on other threads citing MSNBC or the NYT. ;)

[Beetwasher]

11. "But the same people ..."

Really? Where would that be? Show me where I am on those other threads.

[Maven]

12. Like I said

when you're able to report and gather news from around the world--when you have the resources and the manpower and the organization and the journalistic knowledge to do that--then you can say you're a match for the media. Of course, at that point, you'd probably be a large media outlet yourself.

Again, certain big institutions exist for a reason--to collectivize resources for a certain purpose. The argument we're having is essentially no different than conservatives who say, let private citizens do for themselves, whereas liberals argue that government is necessary to do things individuals can't provide for themselves.

That DOESN'T mean that we can't analyze the news from a number of angles and call out bias, which is what we already do. But we won't be getting rid of profit-based newsgathering organizations entirely.

[Beetwasher]

14. Says You

TPM has it's own staff of reporters and does an amazing job, they're not some huge conglomerate. That's just one example of what's going to be replacing the Traditional Media.

Are you saying their "too big to fail"? Where have I heard that before?

Have you heard about the troubles AP is having? How about all the newspapers going out of business?

If the Traditional Media doesn't adapt, they will die. If they adapt, then they will no longer be what they were.

[Maven]

16. I just went to TPM - in a 10 second glance, I saw articles cited from the NYT, Bloomberg, AP and ABC

Also links to Gallup, CNBC, WAPO, The Guardian, etc.

Thanks for proving my point. The mistake you're making is to confuse a newsgathering organization with a news commentary site.

[Beetwasher]

17. How Silly, So What??? You Don't Even KNOW What You're Point Was, Apparently.

They have their OWN reporters and do their OWN reporting from all over the world. You don't need a huge organization and resources to do that (THAT was your point actually, but I'm sure you'll backpeddle away from it). Just because they also link to other news orgs means nothing.

You're "point" is absurd.

[Maven]

18. Who are you thinking of? Josh Marshall?

He does more media commentary than anything else.

The fact is, you do need huge resources to send teams around the world and transmit video by satellite, or to operate bureaus in different world centers to be on the scene when news is happening. Really, the one being silly is you.

As I said, I'm not disputing that the internet has changed the way we gather and assess information, and that news orgs will be less able to get away with propaganda. But let's not pretend that news commentary on the internet will replace news gathering operations in the real world. It's like people who claim that hydrogen power is a replacement for traditional energy sources, when in fact the former is derivative of the latter.

In fact, the premise of your argument is so much hubris, i.e., Obama is so untouchable in the public's eyes that they won't stand for any criticism of him whatsoever. Well, I've got news for you: the public will treat Obama like any other politician, and if they don't like the results of his administration, they won't blame the MSM for negative reporting.

[Beetwasher]

19. Umm, He Has Reporters Reporting NEWS

"The fact is, you do need huge resources to send teams around the world and transmit video by satellite."

BULLSHIT. What a load of crap. I can transmit a story around the globe from my blackberry. Who the fuck needs a huge organization to do that?

"But let's not pretend that news commentary on the internet will replace news gathering operation..."

NOBODY FUCKING SAID THAT. How did I know you'd resort to complete bullshit fabrication and backpedalling at some point? Call me psychic. :eyes:

TPM is NOT just commentary. It's news. They broken SHITLOADS of major news stories in case you haven't noticed (I guess you haven't) :eyes:

[Maven]

20. I've added an additional comment about the faultiness of your premise

Obama isn't any different than any other politician being reported on, and he isn't the first politician to start out in office with high approval ratings.

The only stories I've seen that TPM has "broken" are stories about Washington (i.e., local) politics. That doesn't make them a replacement for Reuters or the New York Times. As I pointed out earlier, their homepage is covered in links and references to major news organizations. They are a derivative news outlet, which apparently they're far more comfortable with than you are.

It looks like you're getting slightly hysterical because you can't face reality, so perhaps we'd best end our conversation.

[Beetwasher]

21. LOL

Way to backpeddle. :rofl:

He IS the first politician to really make use of the internet to the best of it's ability and understand it's reall potential impact in making an end run around Traditional Media. Because of this, and because of the disconnect between what the TM is reporting and what people are seeing with their own eyes, Obama will help drive a stake through it's heart.

How many times are you going to try to change your supposed point?

[Maven]

22. I'm not backpedaling at all.

I've made the same point consistently throughout.

Although Obama is smart to get his message directly to the people, he's now the Person In Charge, hence, not independent. People will continue to look to large media organizations for news and opinion regardless.

[Beetwasher]

23. LOL! Yeah, You're About As Consistent As A Fart In A Windstorm

"People will continue to look to large media organizations for news and opinion regardless."

No, they won't. And as a matter of FACT, they are doing so less and less. Or do you deny that? They will listen to Obama DIRECTLY and go online and do their own research or go to other NEW media they trust more than the gum flappers talking at them. That IS what people are doing, and they will ONLY do it MORESO as Obama makes the TM look even more foolish.

You must have a vested interest in the TM to be so dense about it. But you keep believing that.

[Maven]

24. Tell you what

Let's bookmark this thread and revisit the topic in four years. ;)

[Beetwasher]

25. Why Four Years??

Did I say something about something happening in four years?

[Kahuna]

2. I think so too. I sense a general disdain for petty criticism of Obama..

by the general public. All media, whether they be M$M or liberal bloggers will notice a drop off in their clientel unless they get their acts together.

[Deep13]

5. I've got a wooden stake if he needs it. nt

[bdamomma]

7. boycott the media.

Meet the Press now who's next Nightly news?? The media is so clueless to what the American people want to hear or need. hmm....just the repukes.

[blm]

8. No...the death of newsmedia was set up in the 80s and 90s by the fascists who bought control

of most broadcast and print media.

Some mistakenly hail the demise of newsmedia as if it is a good thing. We should be EXPOSING the fascists' GRIP on the newsmedia and forcing it BACK to to its fundamental task of informing the public the FACTS it needs to better function as citizens.

[Lost4words]

13. well said! nt

[Jennicut]

26. I second that, you are so right. The media itself is not bad

but is shackled by right wing rich corporate control.

[Beetwasher]

28. I Think We're Bypassing It

Traditional Media is outdated. Gone are the days when people want information (propoganda) thrown at them. The internets took care of that. It's a superior way of getting information.

[blm]

30. that 'information' still needs to be collected by a strong team of investigative journalists

Like the Knight Ridder DC bureau that uncovered the cooked intel books and the Downing Street Memos.

Because of their work Knight Ridder was TARGETED by Bush's allies for a takeover and break apart, and take over/break apart is exactly what happened.

[Beetwasher]

32. Well, That's Journalism, Not Necessarily Traditional Media

I don't claim that there will be no more journalism. Of course there will, but the TM has to do w/ the DELIVERY and PACKAGING of that journalism. It is no longer acceptable to have the content (propoganda)thrown at you from a talking head. That's the Traditional Media. Now, you can argue over the definition of the TM and claim that it IS journalism, but that's not the context I'm using. One way (non-interactive) broadcasting of information (propoganda)is the TM I'm discussing.

[WinkyDink]

27. Somehow I can't be euphoric over this assessment. I like TV, newspapers, & magazines. And their jobs

Remember jobs?

[gauguin57]

29. Wrong. We need old media (or old media in new-media format) AND new media.

Seems like 70 percent of what I read in the "new media" is stuff regurgitated from "old media" -- with a spin. But if you don't have the old media (whether it's in old-media or new-media format) to do the original reporting, you won't have stuff to regurgitate.

I must have good old-fashioned investigative reporting -- a la New York Times (Iraq War excepted) -- done within ethical guidelines and established practices, as part of my media mix. Now, as far as newspapers and news magazines go, that may move more and more toward being disseminated on the Internet.

Television news is just a part of that (and a part I try to make a minimal part of my media mix because of how ridiculous that's all gotten).

And I don't only "want to hear" what I "want to hear" -- sometimes I "need" to hear things I don't want to hear. I don't want the old media to merely give me "what I want." Then you wind up getting fluffy-head news for fluffy-heads who only want "good news."

[Alcibiades]

31. Newspapers will go first

They have run a highly profitable enterprise into the ground with their slipshod work. McClatchy ran White House press releases as news virtually unedited for most of the Bush administration, and of course everyone knows about the NYT shilling for the Iraq War. Thousands of local papers print George Will's column regularly, as if anyone has been surprised by anything Will has written in years--indeed, I know what Will is thinking before he does.

The newspapers are the equivalent of the old party media apparatus in the Eastern Bloc countries. The trouble is, after you lie so brazenly for so long, eventually even stupid folks will stop using your product. Next to die: broadcast news.

[Tommy_Carcetti]

33. The "traditional media" is flawed, but what's the alternative?

News blogs? Seriously? I'm supposed to trust unedited and poorly sourced blogs as my primary source of information?

[Beetwasher]

34. Umm, So, You're Supposed To Trust The Propoganda Thrown At You

By the Traditional Media???

Heh. You're probably still looking for WMD's based on the well sourced and professionally edited stories about them in the NYT.

[nc4bo]

35. No but you now have a variety of sources in which you can form an educated

opinion all by yourself free from the M$M's corporate, right-wing bias.

There are usually more sides to any story presented and with the help of the internet you can educate yourself about it rather than just the 1 presented.

Form your own independent opinion instead of relying on an opinion disguised as fact.

[Sebastian Doyle]

36. Ronald Reagan and Bill Clinton were the death of the traditional media.

Ronnie killed the Fairness Act, then Bill struck the death blow with the Telecomunications act of 1996, which allowed massive media consolidation, and made it possible for the Murdoch & Clear Channel empires to exist.

The "traditional media" died soon after that, and was replaced by the corporate whore media that would have made Hitler & Stalin jealous.

But if President Obama can somehow bring an end to this beast from Hell, it couldn't happen too soon.