"the hardest working man in broadcast journalism,"

May 2, 2006 12:31 AM

Is the Media Failing in America? Dan Rather, in conversation with Orville Schell, Dean of the Graduate School of Journalism.UC Berkeley webcast/podcast conversations via
posted by hortense (22 comments total)

very interesting - thanks hortense
posted by stumcg at 2:17 AM on May 2, 2006

HTML style is failing in America, I tell you what.
posted by klangklangston at 6:06 AM on May 2, 2006

transcript?
posted by Afroblanco at 7:06 AM on May 2, 2006

Ok, I'm not snarking against the post itself, whose links I will examine shortly, but I just want to share my first thought:

"Why the FUCK would anyone listen to Dan fucking Rather about how the media fails America? He did nothing to slow the process while he was raking it in for years at the top of the heap, and now we're supposed to start listenting when he sends warning signals? Where was he when he could have done some *real* good? Fuck him."

Ok, now I'll click the links.
posted by mediareport at 7:10 AM on May 2, 2006

"Next on local news: Is the Media Failing in America? The answer might suprise you! We'll be back right after the break."
posted by Artw at 7:48 AM on May 2, 2006

Is the Media Failing in America?

If you even have to ask the question ...
posted by Relay at 8:56 AM on May 2, 2006

Is the media failing?

At grammar, evidently.

Also: Is our children learning?
posted by Artifice_Eternity at 8:58 AM on May 2, 2006

I don't know about you, but my media is singular.
posted by TwelveTwo at 9:00 AM on May 2, 2006

Is it?

This would've been a hot question to ask in 1975.
posted by StrasbourgSecaucus at 9:04 AM on May 2, 2006

Thanks, hortense. Much appreciated. It is fascinating to hear what Rather has to say, and how he says it.
posted by Goofyy at 9:13 AM on May 2, 2006

Failing is present tense.
Failed would be the correct usage.
Elimination of the Fairness Doctrine, corporate consolidation, ugly rich Australians buying up media ...
posted by nofundy at 9:39 AM on May 2, 2006

i tuned in. Made it about halfway through the world according to Dan. Its downhill as soon as Rather dispenses the requisite "I'm from Texas" blather.
posted by Fupped Duck at 9:57 AM on May 2, 2006

According to all the people telling it's not interesting, I get it must be interesting. Why confess others its not thus saving their time ?
posted by elpapacito at 11:12 AM on May 2, 2006

The American Heritage® Book of English Usage.
A Practical and Authoritative Guide to Contemporary English. 1996.


3. Word Choice: New Uses, Common Confusion, and Constraints


§ 206. media
The word medium comes from Latin. It has two plural forms—a Latin plural media and a normal English -s plural mediums. Trouble arises when the Latin plural is used as a singular noun in the fields of mass communications and journalism.
You may have come across media used as a singular noun to refer to a particular means of communication, as in The Internet is the most exciting new media since television. Many people regard this usage as incorrect, preferring medium as the singular instead.
People also use media with the definite article as a collective term to refer not to the forms of communication themselves so much as the communities and institutions behind them. In this sense, the media means something like “the press.” Like other collective nouns, it may take a singular or plural verb depending on the intended meaning. If the point is to emphasize the multifaceted nature of the press, a plural verb may be more appropriate: The media have covered the trial in a variety of formats. Quite frequently, however, media stands as a singular noun for the aggregate of journalists and broadcasters: The media has not shown much interest in covering the trial. This development of a singular media parallels that of more established words such as data and agenda, which are also Latin plurals that have acquired a singular meaning.

Remember that you can’t use the singular medium as a collective noun for the press. You can’t say No medium has shown much interest in covering the trial, which would suggest that the lack of interest is in the means of communication itself rather than in its practitioners.







The American Heritage® Book of English Usage. Copyright © 1996 by Houghton Mifflin Company. All rights reserved
posted by Capt. Bligh at 11:21 AM on May 2, 2006

In this interview, does Dan finally tell us what the frequency is Kenneth? If he's the standard-bearer for journalism, no wonder the only liberal voice on cable news is a sportscaster.
posted by wendell at 11:21 AM on May 2, 2006

Since someone who hasn't listened to it concludes that it must be interesting, based on all the people saying it's not, I guess it must be not interesting.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 11:23 AM on May 2, 2006

Kirth: nice try, but you are assuming I haven't listened , and you can't know that for sure. I offer a rationale (selfish interest) for dissuasing others from watching, you don't :)
posted by elpapacito at 11:49 AM on May 2, 2006

> transcript?

Me too.

Is there a tool that will generate transcripts - even bad ones - from audio?
posted by niloticus at 12:43 PM on May 2, 2006

The transcript got yanked because of suspicious kerning.
posted by PinkStainlessTail at 12:51 PM on May 2, 2006

Media...didn’t she eat her children or something?
posted by Smedleyman at 1:08 PM on May 2, 2006

elpapacito, you mean the individuals saying it's not interesting are so disreputable that they would never present an opinion that might be helpful to others?
.
.
.
I'll have to investigate that.
posted by Kirth Gerson at 1:18 PM on May 2, 2006

It was an interesting interview. Dan Rather performs some extraordinary mental gymnastics to avoid the obvious conclusions (in some cases to avoid stating the obvious conclusions).

niloticus, that question has been asked in AskMe several times, and the answer is a big no.
posted by Chuckles at 10:38 PM on May 2, 2006