Kerry may have lost the election, but there was really a much bigger loser. Mainstream media, which is to say primarily CBS, NY Times and LA Times really staked their credibility on a Kerry win. They threw caution to the wind, and stoked a partisan fire under the cover of the "objective" media, and had their cover blown for all to see. People will forget about the damaging claims that Kerry made, but they won't forget about Rathergate and a host of other betrayals of trust. More importantly, mainstream media knows it's under attack now, and will fight back to keep its privileged position with all the ferocity of the ancien regime that it is.
And if you want an emblem of how low this media monstrosity has sunk you need look no further than the former "most trusted man in America," Walter Cronkite. He who presented the victory of the US in the Tet Offensive as a defeat, and is almost single-handedly responsible for the loss of the Vietnam War, said on CNN's Larry King Show that it was quite reasonble to conclude that the Bush administration had ordered up the Bin Laden tape in order to energize its base.
The perverse old fool.
(Cross-posted by Demosophist to Demosophia and The Jawa Report)
Launched by Demosophist at November 4, 2004 06:07 AMAt the end of the day the market will decide if the MSM should be punished, and in some cases like CBS that has happened already.
But if they continue to make money then changes will be small and of no real consequence.
A New York based paper will continue to server its readers by striking an editorial balance that reflects the needs of its readers, not its detractors. What I find interesting about this is why conservative outlets in the MSM such as the New York Post or the Washington Times can’t match the circulation of the “liberal” papers? Is not the market deciding that the NYT is still the paper of record?
If not what is causing this market failure? Do conservatives not read?
Posted by: Rick DeMent at November 4, 2004 07:53 PM