Desperate, clueless people scrambling to keep us safe?
Or cynical manipulation of public fear and superstition, keeping the pea hopping from shell to shell while the real machinations go on behind the scenes? Either way, the government seems to be doing their part to see that we don't forget that we're supposed to be terrorized.
posted by rushmc
on Nov 10, 2001 -
Are war reporters manufacturing a picture of a failing war effort?
Slate's William Saletan makes some interesting points. Reporters get frustrated simply reporting the same stuff each day -- they want news
. With the current rarity of dramatic events in Afghanistan, Saletan suggests, media outlets are growing impatient, and letting their "professional biases" distort the picture they present. (Shucks. If only Bin Laden had tried to escape in a white Ford Bronco....)
posted by mattpfeff
on Nov 1, 2001 -
some atrocious reporting from the usually responsible UK Guardian
Just an example of bad conclusions from little information. The sensationalist title of this story, reprinted from the Observer, is, "Anthrax attacks' 'work of neo-Nazis,'" (which seems like bad grammar to boot - why the apostrophe after "attacks"?) and then it begins, "Neo-Nazi extremists within the US are behind the deadly wave of anthrax attacks against America, according to latest briefings from the security services and Justice Department."
But if you read the actual article, here's the closest thing they have to a quote or face supporting this:
'We've been zeroing in on a number of hate groups, especially one on the West Coast,' a source at the Justice Department told The Observer yesterday. 'We've certainly not discounted the possibility that they may be involved.'
Is it just me, or is this drawing a lot out of a little, and just confusing the situation?
posted by moth
on Oct 29, 2001 -
Class War - Divided we stand
"Yet at least a tenth of the country — a very influential tenth in the media, the university, politics, foundations, churches, and the arts — is adamantly and vocally at odds with most Americans."
posted by Oxydude
on Oct 28, 2001 -
Is NPR anti-Israel?
I listen to NPR all the time and hadn't noticed any (overt) bias against Israel, but I only listen in the mornings...maybe it's on in the afternoon.
posted by mrmanley
on Oct 24, 2001 -
Will pictures like this
[not graphic, but disturbing] turn popular support against the bombing in Afghanistan? Or will stories like this
bolster support for military action against the Taliban? What story sways you more?
posted by gazingus
on Oct 24, 2001 -
Is The Media's "Whining" About Access Justified?
A journalist criticizes his colleagues: "The disconnect between the U.S. media and the public they purport to serve has turned into a virtual chasm in the wake of the Sept. 11 terrorist attacks."
What are/should be the limits on the ability of the press to obtain unfettered information in sensitive times?
posted by pardonyou?
on Oct 17, 2001 -
This NY Observer article
gives some insight to the validity of Debka
as a news source. It fails to confirm or deny the site's legitimacy either way, but it does mention that some of its reports later showed up in mainstream media. While the owners of the site admit that Debka has an Israeli bias, they go on to say, "You can imagine that officials in Israel, who are in charge of whatever they call it, information,
propaganda or whatever, they don’t like us very much."
Has China really sent 15,000 troops to afghanistan to fight on the side of the taliban? I guess we'll find out sooner or later.
posted by rabbit
on Oct 13, 2001 -
"A Slight Case of Anthrax"
CBS pulls tonights episode of The Agency (at least on the West Coast, don't know about East Coast). Hmmm...I can't imagine why:
"The team works against the clock to stop an anthrax threat in the United States. A Belgian kennel has fallen victim to a terrorist attack in which the deadly disease anthrax was used. When the CIA discovers the perpetrator's identity and that Washington, D.C., is his next target, the team mobilizes to stop the criminal before he can reach the capital."
Is the shrinking line between truth and fiction becoming too close for comfort?
posted by nix
on Oct 11, 2001 -
Where are you getting your information from lately?
Try getting it from places
where the views
It's getting very scary.
posted by chainring
on Oct 5, 2001 -
Will Durst: "ABC has its blue circled logo in the bottom right with red-and-white stripes shooting offscreen, and CBS has a motto: 'America on Alert.' Not all of the cable stations have official mottos but that's why I'm here.
posted by tpoh.org
on Oct 4, 2001 -
National Review Cans Columnist Ann Coulter
as a contributing editor after her call to "invade their countries, kill their leaders and convert them to Christianity." For a person who makes a living out of being as obnoxious, partisan and mean as she can be will this do anything but put her in the spotlight and help her career? The way she has slammed the National Review
since her axing seems to indicate this will be the case. And she's already blaming the "liberal" media and the "anti-Christian bigots."
posted by terrapin
on Oct 2, 2001 -
Daily comic strips have started to react to the attacks. The only two I noticed in today's paper were Fox Trot
and The Boondocks
. Their tones are, predictably, somber. The one comic I'd expect to have something to say, Doonesbury
, is still stuck on an older storyline. Have other strips referenced September 11?
posted by sandor
on Sep 24, 2001 -
Ron Fineman's On The Record
is a well-done critical look at TV news. It's centered on the LA market and most of the discussion relates to LA stations, but networks and cable channels are covered too and (for a TV news geek like me at least) it's all interesting. The letters section is usually a pretty lively discussion, and the "Broadcasteze Citation of the Week" highlights stuff that anchors and reporters say that no one else ever would.
posted by Vidiot
on Sep 21, 2001 -
comes through.. networks actually working together, along with cable companies, as well as Hollywood.
Muhammad Ali and Billy Joel just floored me. You can also donate at foodstores and dozens of other easy to get to places, so there are no excuses. I'm still waiting for them to need for physical labor volunteers.
posted by rich
on Sep 21, 2001 -
has been doing an excellent job of analyzing the world media after the tragedy. If you're in the MIT
area, check out the scheduled and ongoing events
posted by jakd
on Sep 18, 2001 -
Some thought-provoking journalism
from the Australian online journal Crikey, including a piece from the "DEBKA-net-newsletter, an expensive intelligence newsletter out of Israel" and an analysis of the Gordon Sinclair "Good Neighbour" editorial.
posted by chrisgregory
on Sep 18, 2001 -
quotes David Hubler of Potomac Tech Journal
talking about the media. Sorry I couldn't find the article in the original magazine. He says he's peturbed media labeling the WTC event. On Tuesday, from a friend's lower east side apartment, admittedly in shock, I thought the media took the title America Attacked
with naked clarity. The media, in its job of broadcasting uses devices as titles and eye witnesses and all obvious whatnot and often does so with bad taste. Not to over praise the media, but that morning I couldn't have thought of a better title. In another difference of opinion, David Huber thought the sunshine was a symbol of New York going on. Triumphant, if you will. And it was some of the most beautiful weather we ever get here. But I thought it was vulgur. The scenery for the wrong show. Perhaps again something naked, exposed. I'm finding that my response to this event is symbolism exploding everywhere.
posted by Laurable
on Sep 17, 2001 -
Another thoughtful article
Open the Washington Post to it's editorial pages, and war talk dominates:
Henry Kissinger: Destroy the Network.
Robert Kagan: We Must Fight This War.
Charles Krauthammer: To War, Not to Court.
William S. Cohen: American Holy War.
There is no column by Colman McCarthy talking peace.
posted by mapalm
on Sep 14, 2001 -
but it's a little too late to muzzle this beast. The Palestinian Authority tries to stop press coverage of post-bombing celebrations (sorry if this has already been posted).
posted by estopped
on Sep 13, 2001 -
The Examiner spells it out.
As a newspaper page designer (for a much smaller, tamer paper), I wonder what you all think of the San Francisco Examiner's semi-profane but heartfelt front-page headline. On one hand, it's editorializing, but on the other, it expresses what an awful lot of people are thinking. I think I like it, but I also know it'd never get printed in a lot of papers, including my own.
posted by diddlegnome
on Sep 13, 2001 -
Do you think that CNN
has the best coverage so far? I've appreciated that they've tried not to be too inflammatory. BBC
has been much more graphic (honest) but I think evoking anti-Arab sentiment is a serious fear of the American networks when they choose not to show Arabs celebrating. MSNBC
seems to be doing a pretty fair job. I'm not paranoid but is anyone else wondering what else is being withheld. (Sorry for the boring post but I really wonder who people have been impressed or disappointed with so far.)
posted by wsfinkel
on Sep 12, 2001 -
Poynter.org has begun posting pdfs of newspaper front pages from around the country. Oddly, the San Fran Examiner's special edition front isn't up. Does anyone else have a link to it? How has your local paper handled it?
posted by ice_cream_motor
on Sep 12, 2001 -
Russia's caustic English-language bi-weekly, The eXile
, has been sold to a Dutch media company and its expat editors have been forced to resign. The magazine, which has pulled nary a punch in its quest to both inform and disgust, will apparently become just another inoffensive local guide to sports and entertainment in Moscow.
posted by tpoh.org
on Sep 1, 2001 -
Industry Standard folds.
I knew this was coming, and yet it's still unbelievable. How could such a cool publication (and even cooler automated e-mails) call it quits so fast? I think the sky really is falling. And Welcome back, y'all.
posted by ParisParamus
on Aug 20, 2001 -
CNN & FOX: Birds of a feather? In an effort to improve his network's image with conservative leaders, new CNN chief Walter Isaacson huddled with House and Senate GOP leaders last week to seek advice on how to attract more right-leaning viewers to the sagging network.
posted by Rastafari
on Aug 5, 2001 -
Dan Rather vs. The World
(NY Times link) -- While the conspiracy theorists
and much of the mainstream media were jumping down Gary Condit's throat, Rather and company held firm and kept the "news" off the Evening News. Despite airing a few reports, they intend to keep a comparatively low level of coverage in the future. Is this how we'd like to see the media behave, or is this just a more notable example of The Media's Liberal Bias™ showing through?
posted by mrbula
on Jul 23, 2001 -
Media Deception and Iraq
An interesting quick story-- one journalist smells a rat in an AP report about Iraq using money to buy weapons, investigates the genesis of the story, and finds more deception. Meanwhile statistics on children dying from sanctions go unpublished.
posted by chaz
on Jul 11, 2001 -
Americans less supportive of 1st amendment.
Roughly four in 10 people (41%) said the media have too much freedom. Four in 10 respondents (39%) believed the First Amendment goes too far in guaranteeing rights. 71% said it was "very" or "somewhat" important for the government to hold the media in check.
posted by frednorman
on Jul 8, 2001 -
Independent magazines published on the web in the same vein as "old school" printed ones
. Sort of the step between a blog and a full blown Salon (as in MetaFocus
?). I'm thinking about doing one, any you can recommend?
posted by owillis
on Jul 6, 2001 -
Black leaders refuse to pledge allegiance to flag
is an example of a story that The Washington Times
blows way out of proportion. The term *black leaders* would imply that there are multitudes of African-American politicians/community leaders who are refusing to pledge allegiance to the flag. However, if you read the whole story, it turns out that only ONE person, an assembly-women from Tennessee is the focus of the whole story!
Of course, the Times
doesn't forget to remind the readers that she, and all who support her, are Democrats...
posted by Rastafari
on Jun 22, 2001 -
Press sez "good", public sez "bad"
I'm not posting this story to discuss Bush's EU tour (lord knows we've done that one to death), but rather to examine this line: "Mr. Bush's European tour, though it drew largely upbeat news coverage, did not appear to help him in the eyes of the public." I'm a pretty big believer that the media (oh, let's just go ahead and capitalize it: "The Media") plays a huge role is shaping public perceptions of politicians, and I too thought the coverage of Bush's EU trip was pretty positive -- certainly in comparison to the "he's gonna go over there and get suckerpunched" predictions they were running before his departure. And, still, his numbers go down. What do you think? How large an influence does The Media really have? Does the public just believe what Peter Jennings tells 'em, or is it possible that, *gasp*, they can think for themselves?
posted by Shadowkeeper
on Jun 21, 2001 -
Digital Renaissance: Convergence? I Diverge.
MIT's Director of the Program in Comparative Media Studies, Henry Jenkins, speaks about the different aspects of "Convergence." Working at a large multinational company who is banking on "convergence" for future success, and yet skeptical about "convergence" personally, I welcome MeFiers to post their opinions on Jenkins' differentiation of "convergence" and what you think will be powerful or popular in the near future. Taken from Tomalak's Realm
posted by gen
on Jun 17, 2001 -