January 14, 2004

DISLIKED? US?

"You dislike us. You really dislike us." In seven words, Reed Johnson of the LA Times summarises the public’s attitude towards the media. The rest of his piece, as The Lincoln Plawg points out, provides reasons to dislike Reed Johnson of the LA Times.

(Via reader J. Softley)

UPDATE. In his piece, Reed writes: “No wonder so many people have been taking us to task: pundits, bloggers, journalism school professors and politicians right up to and including the president of the United States ...”

Here’s the latest taking to task, performed by Robert Musil.

Posted by Tim Blair at January 14, 2004 12:43 AM
Comments

Interesting that dear old Ted Turner didn't make the list of political media giants that influence news. Only pro-Iraq war media monsters are a bad thing?

Posted by: winnie at January 14, 2004 at 05:07 AM

I quit taking the L.A. Times over three years ago. It is, indeed, a piece of crap.

And even the comics page isn't worth reading any more...

Posted by: Alice at January 14, 2004 at 06:35 AM

snip
During the late 1960s and early '70s the United States was arguably more politically polarized than it is now, over the Vietnam War, civil rights and the era's sexual, generational and cultural upheavals. Rather than retreating from the fray, the media waded in and broke such crucial stories as the Pentagon Papers and the Watergate scandal.
snip
They wants to change the world again. All lefty reporters imagine themselves being societal saviors. Just report the facts and shut up.

Posted by: Jim at January 14, 2004 at 06:38 AM

Journos cna't figure things out.The following from a recruitment add for a `political correspondent' by the BBC, posted in the Spectator,3/1/04, is sufficiently telling.

`You'll also need the ability to operate technical equipment in accordance with the BBC's production methods, and an awareness of the range of outlets, styles and agendas served by BBC News.'

It seems to escape not only the BBC but other media firms that what many objecd6t to is precisely distortion of news in order to advance `agendas'.


Posted by: d at January 14, 2004 at 08:28 AM

Here are the main sins of 2003, according to Reed:

"Jayson Blair's serial falsehoods, the New York Times management crackup, the Washington Post's gung-ho reporting (and later re-reporting) of the Pfc. Jessica Lynch rescue, media mogul Conrad Black's financial faux pas, CBS' leveraging of a Michael Jackson interview and entertainment special..."

No mention of the LA Times' attempted hatchet job on Arnie a few days from the recall election. Or the Times' continued refusal to run stories on Gray Davis' many personal flaws.

No need for Reed to be so modest.

Posted by: The Mongrel at January 14, 2004 at 08:43 AM

Australian opinion polls regularly show that the public rate journalists as the profession with the lowest credibility - lower even than used car salespeople.

Why should we be surprised? Used car dealers cleaned up their act a long time ago, with strong codes of conduct backed up by strong laws. Pity we can't say the same about journalists.

Posted by: Rob (No 1) at January 14, 2004 at 10:05 AM

I wrote this same article, verbatim, six months ago...

Posted by: Jayson Blair at January 14, 2004 at 12:27 PM

"Robert Musil", eh?

Posted by: Marcel Proust@Blogspot at January 14, 2004 at 01:27 PM

If you are interested in the roots of contemporary left wing philosophy trace it back to the Frankfurt School in the early part of the 20th Century. Essentially it is a religion that states if you aren't left wing in your thinking, you are doomed and will bring the wrath of terror (they don't believe in any form of a god) upon the world.

The idelogies slipped into our universities in the 30s and by the 60s were in full swing until today, where if you aren't a Frankfurt School sympathiser (even if you have no idea what that means) you are not going to get a lecturing position in any Humanities faculty.

This means that all the journalist plebs are indoctrinated from freshman year and by the time they exit, the mould extractor has shaped them into the lemming-like leftist who believes they are truly above the working class - insert whatever trendy socio-economic group you want her - (even though they will tell you they are fighting for them - see how it works, they are fighting for the dumb ass working class, because they are superior to them and thus able to do so).

So they graduate and are hired by the lemming leftist editor of a rag newspaper proping itself up as a "serious" voice and begin tapping away at their wordprocessor taking an "objective" position on the stories of the day - even though, over drinks, they will tell you they cannot possibly be truly objective as they are a person and god forbid (sorry, I know they don't believe in a god) they could not surrender their caring humanity for the , ummm - truth.

Michael Crichton (writer of Jurrasic Park, Rising Sun, Disclosure) said it best - "the greatest threat to humanity in the 21st century is the inability to distinguish truth from fiction".

Let's all go have a chardonnay, talk about how we have to save that working class and then call the workingclass rednecks if they criticise our journalistic approches.

After all, we're educated.

End of history lesson.

Posted by: Simon Lawrence at January 14, 2004 at 02:03 PM

If you are interested in the roots of contemporary left wing philosophy trace it back to the Frankfurt School in the early part of the 20th Century. Essentially it is a religion that states if you aren't left wing in your thinking, you are doomed and will bring the wrath of terror (they don't believe in any form of a god) upon the world.

The idelogies slipped into our universities in the 30s and by the 60s were in full swing until today, where if you aren't a Frankfurt School sympathiser (even if you have no idea what that means) you are not going to get a lecturing position in any Humanities faculty.

This means that all the journalist plebs are indoctrinated from freshman year and by the time they exit, the mould extractor has shaped them into the lemming-like leftist who believes they are truly above the working class - insert whatever trendy socio-economic group you want her - (even though they will tell you they are fighting for them - see how it works, they are fighting for the dumb ass working class, because they are superior to them and thus able to do so).

So they graduate and are hired by the lemming leftist editor of a rag newspaper proping itself up as a "serious" voice and begin tapping away at their wordprocessor taking an "objective" position on the stories of the day - even though, over drinks, they will tell you they cannot possibly be truly objective as they are a person and god forbid (sorry, I know they don't believe in a god) they could not surrender their caring humanity for the , ummm - truth.

Michael Crichton (writer of Jurrasic Park, Rising Sun, Disclosure) said it best - "the greatest threat to humanity in the 21st century is the inability to distinguish truth from fiction".

Let's all go have a chardonnay, talk about how we have to save that working class and then call the workingclass rednecks if they criticise our journalistic approches.

After all, we're educated.

End of history lesson.

Posted by: Simon Lawrence at January 14, 2004 at 02:03 PM

I weep.

Reminds me of the Simon&Garfunkel tune:
I am just a poor boy
Though my bylines seldom sold
Refrain: yada ya, yada ya ya ya ya ya...

Posted by: Timothy L at January 14, 2004 at 04:58 PM