[Imc] Re: your mail
David Young
dyoung at clam.clamcenter.org
Wed Dec 6 19:05:36 UTC 2000
On Wed, Dec 06, 2000 at 09:14:56AM -0600, Zachary C.Miller wrote:
> > The question seemed to be "do we slant, in response to their slant?"
>
> I heard someone give a very interesting analysis of "objective
> journalism" at a WEFT meeting a while back. If whoever said this stuff
> is on this list I apologize for stealing your ideas!
>
> Anyway the suggestion was that the very concept of "objective
> journalism" is a product of capitalism and profit motive. Big profits
> come from the economies of scale of mass media but you can't have mass
> media unless you have a mass audience and you can't build a mass
> audience unless your news is as thoughoughly homogenized,
> uncontroversial, and painless to digest as possible.
To start off, let me observe that most people probably do not read
one newspaper, let alone two, likely for reasons of time, expense,
and newspapers' pervasive bias.
Seems to me that there are at least two ways to build a mass news
audience. First, by news that is uncontroversial, and (universally)
painless to digest. Second, by news where everyone sees their views
represented.
There are at least two ways, also, to achieve a news source that,
with respect to its intended audience, is "thoroughly homogenized,
uncontroversial, and painless to digest." First, you can produce news
that appeals to everyone because it is editorially bland. Second,
you can produce news that appeals very well to a particular group
by taking an editorial position that precludes general interest.
The WEFTie argues, in effect, for a news source that is
uncontroversial and painlessly digested because it precludes general
interest. That is, only Communists, or Democrats, or John Birch
Society members will read it. I do not think those are very useful
or interesting news sources at their inception (I can go into the
reasons why), and they only get worse.
A more useful and interesting news source is one where everyone
sees their views represented in a *dialogue*. That is, two or more
contributors with different views address each others' arguments in
the same pages. (Imagine that! Someone speaking to another's argument
on TV or in the newspaper, instead of saying "I have a difference of
opinion"---even on matters of fact---and launching right back into
their hallucinogenic version of things, like pundits are wont to do.)
Dave
More information about the IMC
mailing list