You must be logged in to add a comment. You may signup for a free account to get started or login to your existing account.
1842 days ago
Replies (6)
I've always wondered if this is just a byproduct of the rise of 24/7 news channels and the constant need to have a scandal to sensationalize or if this is something more sinister.

Your point about mainstream media being a business is spot on. There are very few objective news organizations anymore. I watch PBS NewsHour whenever I can, but even they are largely dependent on billionaire donors who they are loathe to seriously investigate. Even worse, they sometimes skew their reporting to make sure their billionaire donors don't get upset.

I agree with much of your post, especially the final paragraph. I have a feeling history will judge Obama very fondly. The dichotomy between what he has accomplished and the vitriol spewed at him on a daily basis is telling. He has accomplished nearly everything he set out to do in 2008 outside of one thing: toning down the rhetoric in DC. He may have been naive to think he could ever have accomplish that, but he did give it a good try.
"I've always wondered..." I think you are spot-on with attributing this, at least in part, to 24/7 news and the 'entertainification' (for lack of a better word) of our news. Instead of simply conveying facts, events, and images, we are inundated in analysis and subjective criticism (it doesn't even have to be partisan--the subjective evaluation of which facts are most important or deserve further analysis obscures all news coverage today) as though this were a sophomore English class tackling Steinbeck. At least in sports coverage, the talking heads don't influence what is actually happening in the game. Politically, the influence of "analysis" is all too real. I have no doubt a Republican President following Obama would be subjected to the same style of baseless scrutiny to fill the quiet hours of the news cycle. They will be rebranded for the new President, but it will amount to the same distracting drivel that populated the last six years of "news."
Schmidt
SchmidtLiberal/progressive/pragmatist
6.8k 30 64 11 4 Colorado Springs, CO
 

1837 days ago
Replies (4)
ETWilson -- Yes are we subjected to "analysis" and switching back and forth between MSNBC and Fox News you'll get two different perspectives of what is important in that analysis. However, even conveying just facts, events and images contains degrees of politicization. And much of the public is not even able to make a distinction of relevance. So many of the issues covered in the media should be relegated to the back pages, while important events catch little attention. As long as we are spending hours discussing "trivia" such as Obama's birth certificate, or anything Sarah Palin, we are not critically thinking about what really affects people's lives.