The myth is reporters do not do their jobs and get lulled by one political side or another is false, but not untrue.
The key factor in our media organization has to do with one thing. Only one thing: job security.
One of those fellows who broke the Watergate scandal also reported in the late 70's or early 80's about how the CIA have agents in newsrooms across the USA. NY Times being one of the largest offenders.
The NY times responded (not vebatum, but close), "we only have 7 agents." (or a number close to that)
I can't say what this means now days. However with media outlets admitting they were too soft on Bush recently, it is apparent free press is not so free.
the fact is Democracy Now has a small budget compaired to something like Fox, NBC, CNN, etc... The most popular progressive magazines or news paper cannot hold a candle to Time or People, and the NY Post.
We progressives have little or no funding to combat the larger picture. What are we to do? We could write our paper en mass and let them know that we want better reporting.
Another aspect I know first hand about is the bastardization of a story. You might write a story and then the ap picks it up and soon CBS is using terms you invented (sandwich generation is a term my wife invented, thank you very much), or they simply copy the story with some rewording.
This is fine, when it comes to issues without debate, however when 99.9% of most world and national news comes from the AP and not from local writers, you tend to get views that might not be in concert with your region.
A story with the same facts can be viewed from many angles, and this bastardisation is only one point of view, usually the first writer. Which is fine, objectivity is the same in Alaska as it is in Alabama.
The break down really happens when the AP story is a gloss over story, or if it was written from a political slant... ah, I'm too tired to write more, you get my drift, love to you all, svp
The myth is reporters do not do their jobs and get lulled by one political side or another is false, but not untrue.
The key factor in our media organization has to do with one thing. Only one thing: job security.
One of those fellows who broke the Watergate scandal also reported in the late 70's or early 80's about how the CIA have agents in newsrooms across the USA. NY Times being one of the largest offenders.
The NY times responded (not vebatum, but close), "we only have 7 agents." (or a number close to that)
I can't say what this means now days. However with media outlets admitting they were too soft on Bush recently, it is apparent free press is not so free.
the fact is Democracy Now has a small budget compaired to something like Fox, NBC, CNN, etc... The most popular progressive magazines or news paper cannot hold a candle to Time or People, and the NY Post.
We progressives have little or no funding to combat the larger picture. What are we to do? We could write our paper en mass and let them know that we want better reporting.
Another aspect I know first hand about is the bastardization of a story. You might write a story and then the ap picks it up and soon CBS is using terms you invented (sandwich generation is a term my wife invented, thank you very much), or they simply copy the story with some rewording.
This is fine, when it comes to issues without debate, however when 99.9% of most world and national news comes from the AP and not from local writers, you tend to get views that might not be in concert with your region.
A story with the same facts can be viewed from many angles, and this bastardisation is only one point of view, usually the first writer. Which is fine, objectivity is the same in Alaska as it is in Alabama.
The break down really happens when the AP story is a gloss over story, or if it was written from a political slant... ah, I'm too tired to write more, you get my drift, love to you all, svp