The illusion of objectivity in journalism has been destroyed. I say illusion because the whole thing was a big farce invented by the American journalism profession and the TV networks to con people into believing their version of the truth. In my experience, the political affiliation of media outlets and journalists in other countries is much more transparent than in the U.S., and it has been for years. It's only now that we're losing our naivete.
Having said that, I believe there are some issues that are covered outside of politics, where political affiliation isn't important or even considered and where traditional party politics breaks down. Look at the downloading issue before the Supreme Court. There are people from both parties on both sides of the argument. There are big special interest groups on both sides feeding money into the process. And that's ok. As far as polarization today goes, look at it in a historical context. Things were much more polarized in the early part of the 20th century, to say nothing of the 19th or 18th centuries. I've seen a number of reports looking at the current climate in a historical context. As far as targeting your ideas to a polarized base to make a buck, Ann Coulter and Michael Moore are the two best examples of that in our society today. They both seem to believe what they say, but their speech and their stances take on this cartoonish appearance. Red meat sells, and the both know it, so they dish it out in ample portions. Have you heard of a moderate political voice with a bestselling book lately? I can't seem to recall one. I was thinking of running a business printing t-shirts, bumper stickers, etc. for the topic of the day (Schiavo, Iraq, etc.). You see a lot of this going around the Web already. Not that I actually have time to do this, but it's a fun idea. I was thinking of playing both sides- one site for Democrats and one site for Republicans. If I'm going to be a whore, I might as well market to the widest possible audience! Smart companies fund both political parties- that's just part of doing business. >Gruss wrote: >In February The National Press Foundation honored Fox News' Brit Hume >with its Sol Taishoff award. The 4 person committee that unamimously >elected him called him, "an excellent journalist." The trouble is >that Mr. Hume isn't objective and was said to practice "ideologically >connected journalism" by Geneva Overholser, the former ombudsman of >The Washington Post. > >Isn't "ideologically connected journalism" an oxymoron? I guess not. >Of course Mr. Hume would claim he's only "balancing" the tilt of other >media outlets. > >Here's the key: what he wouldn't say was that he was being objective. >Why not? Because that's less profitable. Why? Because millions of >people are also profiting by attaching themselves to his political >party and they want to hear what their side has to say; both to gather >their talking points and to justify their behavior. > >They've figured out that when you align yourself with a party you get >favors, attention, and profit. And the politicians at the root of it >have to pretend to be solving social issues to keep this Ponzi scheme >legal. Just like Amway. > >So why all of the polarization? Because increasingly it's the only >way to make money in America. Don't be surprised if during your next >job interview or client meeting they ask you which news channel you >watch. But then you'll probably know just how to answer. ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:152596 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
