Standing opposed to something is easy, standing FOR something is more difficult.

The website Poynter, which specializes in journalism news and education, published a selection of excerpts of various editorials curated together from several newspapers across the country.  The curation had a theme: opposition to President Trump. 

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

The website Poynter, which specializes in journalism news and education, published a selection of excerpts of various editorials curated together from several newspapers across the country.  The curation had a theme: opposition to President Trump.

Click the image below to be redirected to the curation.

Screenshot_2018-08-16 America, help The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write
David Beard, “America, help!  The freedom of the nation depends on you, hundreds of news outlets write,” Poynter (2018).”

Newspapers should be oppositional to governments because opposition and dissent is fundamental to the concept of free speech, but opposition should not be the sole purpose of an organization.  Standing opposed to something is easy, standing for something is usually more difficult.

Chicago Sun Times: “We are the enemy of societal failings.”

What does that mean?  What societal failings?  Can newspapers decide what makes a society fail?

I don’t think news organizations should not be proselytizing a particular ideology, they should simply be outlets for truth (facts only).

The “enemy of racism?”

There will always be racism and bigotry in any society, that is a part of human nature.  To hate is a part of being human.  To fight against racism is to fight against a part of humanity.  Ideologues with a utopian vision of a so-called “perfect society” fight against their view of evil by fighting against the darker sides of human nature in an attempt to mold humans into a tool for their utopia.  Instead of moralizing about human emotions, we need to accept the positive aspects of our humanity with the more negative aspects and live with a decent balance.

Trust no one but I.

To whom should we go for the truth? I think the answer is obvious – everywhere.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

Media personalities have usually enjoyed an underdog aura around them – the perception of a small-time journalist fighting corruption – but that is changing with the ever-expanding digital news environment and particularly since the 2016 presidential election.  Large media outlets no longer receive the benefit of the doubt when they report news.  President Trump has put a lot of pressure on media organizations to show evidence with their reporting and prove the facts in what they say, which will be a net positive for journalists.  No one person’s word should be treated as gospel.

Regardless of which side of the political spectrum you’re on, you probably have your list of news stations that you go to and that you trust more than other sources and especially more than government officials, but what if your preferred sources of news aren’t actually very trustworthy at all?  If you found out that your favorite reporter/anchor/spokesman [insert a name here] lied on every broadcast he or she had ever participated in, where would you go to fill the void left by the absence of that formerly beloved media personality?

To whom should we go for the truth?  I think the answer is obvious – everywhere.

The plethora of consumer choices in media today has created more competition between channels (be it on television or on the world wide web) and traditional televised media does not command audiences as it once did, there is more fluidity in the industry now.  And, as ratings fall among traditional media, the desperate they are going to get for viewers.

 

“Media Malignancy” from Wizard of Cause.

 

 

 

The Media Outrage Machine Must Die

If you ever find yourself the target of an angry mob over something you said on a media platform, DO NOT make a public apology.  Double down and embrace the hate.

Featured image courtesy of <theantimedia.com>.

By Dylan R.N. Crabb

 

If you ever find yourself the target of an angry mob over something you said on a media platform, DO NOT make a public apology. Double down on your ideals and embrace the hate.

The media outrage machine is arguably a product of the 24-hour news cycle and the extreme partisan climate Americans see in our politics these days. When television news stations run programs all day, every day, how much of what they’re covering is actually news worthy? What is news worthy? What topics are simply used as filler for day-time programs?

I think a news station that is required to run programs all day, every day, is destined succumb to partisan play (catering to a particular faction or ideology). Political journalists should be writing about promises from political candidates, candidates’ financial sources, financial corruption, elections, votes, election fraud, voter fraud, legislation, government appointments, government edicts, conflicts of interest, (you get my point) any number of issues relating government functions and public transparency. Drama between two specific commentators is not news worthy.

The new poster boy for the Democratic Party, David Hogg, was wrong to sick his sycophants on Laura Ingraham and attack Ingraham’s advertisers. Ingraham’s initial tweet about Hogg and his college aspirations wasn’t even that insulting compared to most political insults these days and, in any case, she already apologized for it (something Ingraham should not have done). Ingraham should have ignored Hogg’s whining and continued with her usual banter. On the flip side, Hogg cannot step into the political arena and then claim the victim card once he’s criticized. I don’t care if he’s a high school student, his ideas (like everyone else’s) are not immune to criticism.

I suppose I should be cheering Hogg and Ingraham for further contributing to the fall of mainstream media. That’s what happens with a business model that caters to the lowest common denominator of our society.