Go to The Impossibility Of Knowing
- Add a comment
- Go to Bloggers Are Full Of Contradictions
Thanks AnnandBenjamin.
posted by
Azur
on August 5, 2005 at 3:55 AM
| link to this | reply
Your last sentence is the cream of the post!
posted by
A-and-B
on August 5, 2005 at 3:53 AM
| link to this | reply
I agree with you 100%.
I don't want things censored for me. Labels don't even register with me. When a reporter throws around words like conservative and liberal I feel like I'm being forced to buy a product that I don't want or need. "Join the conservatives and be happy with this manufactured bubble that we will create for you!" and vice versa. It's nonsense. Anyway, great post! Take care
posted by
Flumpystalls3000
on August 1, 2005 at 2:52 PM
| link to this | reply
DaveCryer, "If our media gives us the choice, then we can do exactly that." I wish people were not so quick to wish away choice. I think that it is a mistake to think that a rigorous and questioning media will undermine the goverment. As I said, if it can stand up to scrutiny, it will mean it is strong.
posted by
Azur
on August 1, 2005 at 12:14 PM
| link to this | reply
Dave Cryer, I don't want to be spared the details either although I said to Quirky I don't want to report it if the sole purpose is to take someone down. If they need to be taken down and people need to know well that's different - I use to hate asking someone how they felt when something awfu l happened but then some people need to talk
It does worry me that people want the press to print stuff that only supports the government, well I think that is a much more American thing. Not the case in Britain I know. At least some places still retain some standards
posted by
Azur
on August 1, 2005 at 1:53 AM
| link to this | reply
Your last two paragraphs say it all.
And unlike Quirky, I do want the detail too. Not because of some voyeuristic pleasure, but because, for me, if you don't get the full story, the true horror of what's happening may not reach the depth of your heart or head. The bad news can easily be brushed aside unless the reporter tells it to the minutiae.
I recall forcing myself to watch a programme about Afghanistan under the Taliban, where nothing was tempered for the watching audience. My Sam wouldn't watch it for the same reasons as Quirky, but she understood why I wanted to, why I felt I had to.
So vigorous and rigorous is what I want for sure. Others don't and that's their choice. If our media gives us the choice, then we can do exactly that. Choose which level of news reporting we want.
As you say, if someone else determines the choice for us, that's when the real trouble starts.
posted by
_dave_says_ack_
on August 1, 2005 at 1:45 AM
| link to this | reply
Terpgirl30, I wonder at the people who would so easily dispense with the fourth estate. A society which is able to make strong and intelligent calls based on good information is far stronger than one from which information is suppressed or doctored according to one side
posted by
Azur
on July 31, 2005 at 8:29 PM
| link to this | reply
I'm a purist
when it comes to the role of jouranlist. The media is set up to function as the Fourth Estate. That's a serious thing. The role is never to prop up and support the people in power for the sake of unity. It's supposed to be a mirror, to keep government honest. Before anyone starts the debate on how often media has been caught recently...first it's usually caught by members of another arm of the media, if not by the reporter's own organization. It proves that the idea works...Good for the goose thing. Scrutiny isn't a bad thing.
posted by
terpgirl30
on July 31, 2005 at 8:00 PM
| link to this | reply
MayB-The media is generally "liberal" and
reporters and editors are generally at odds with their
background with is probably in the main, Republican.
posted by
scriber
on July 31, 2005 at 7:10 PM
| link to this | reply
QuirkyAlone, I agree with that. I am not prurient in my interest and I have no interest in the details you describe. In fact I did not enjoy having to write court and crime stories and did not believe in giving names for the sake of it.
posted by
Azur
on July 31, 2005 at 5:31 PM
| link to this | reply
I don't want media-lite either, in the terms you spoke of. I would, however, prefer media-lite in terms of details they post about families and victims of crimes, etc. Esp. the photographs of the crying people...much of what they tell us, we just don't need to know that.
posted by
Julia.
on July 31, 2005 at 5:09 PM
| link to this | reply