Rollback?

Friday, February 17, 2006
Mark Tapscott makes some useful points, riffing off Jay Rosen:
Unless one is prepared to argue a conspiracy theory - Cheney used the delay between the accident and when the call was made to the newspaper to shape what was said to the reporter and to local law enforcement authorities - it is clear Cheney thought a local newspaper was more likely to report the accident accurately than a confrontational, liberally biased White House press corps.

The context for that decision is simple: Like it or not, the mainstream national media long ago lost much of its credibility with the public and has for many years been losing great chunks of its audience to Talk Radio, cable news and the Internet. The MSM is no longer the mainstream or national.

Indeed, one can make the case that entirely apart from ideological considerations it is rapidly becoming possible to communicate effectively with the general public without according the shrinking mainstream media anything remotely like the respect it once commanded. And still demands.

And nobody in this or any other White House is naive or stupid enough to think they can silence Rush Limbaugh, Bill O'Reilly or Powerline. Or DailyKos, MyDD or Comments from Left Field. Or PressThink, Tapscott's Copy Desk or (Lord help them if they ever try) Jeff Jarvis!

Bottomline: Rollback means "reality check."

8 comments:

David Thomson said...

Do some people think we are still in the middle of the 19th Century? The reality is that there is no substantial difference between giving a story to a local newspaper or a national media behemoth. The local reporter posts the item immediately on the wires. Who needs the MSM? Modern technology makes them virtually obsolete.

I am currently writing these comments in a bathrobe, half awake, drinking my second cup of coffee. No longer does someone have to drive down to a particular building and sit down in front of an expensive piece of equipment. An four year old IMAC and a Road Runner Internet connection works just fine.

Seneca the Younger said...

I am currently writing these comments in a bathrobe, half awake, drinking my second cup of coffee.


TMI

No longer does someone have to drive down to a particular building and sit down in front of an expensive piece of equipment. An four year old IMAC and a Road Runner Internet connection works just fine.

It would be nice if these folks saw their jobs as something beyond that, though. Even if they are fully dressed.

David Thomson said...

The MSM is able to pay salaries, travel expenses, etc. But its former technological advantage is rapidly disappearing. Much of the equipment we use today are commodity items. A ho-hum computer purchased from Wal-Mart for $300 can basically do the job of one costing thousands of dollars.

terrye said...

david:

This is true, but then again the MSM has resources average people can not imagine.

If they would just get back to reporting rather than molding the news people would be glad to go back to them.

They have just lost so much credibility their audience is dwindling.

The whole ignore the cartoons but jump all over Cheney thing is a perfect example.

markg8 said...
This comment has been removed by a blog administrator.
CF said...

The WSJ has an interesting opinion piece by Henninger today on these manufactured scandals, suggesting they are designed to turn wedge voters away from the Reps.

They may be designed for that purpose, but I think this is another instance where the MSM aimed at the Administration and shot off their own gonads.

Knucklehead said...

cf,

I also read that Henninger piece in the WSJ online.

He has a valid observation about the effect and, quite possibly, about the notion of the non-stop, all crisis all the time, shrieking of Dems and Press.

I have no doubt that painting everything as all bad, all the time, has an effect on people. Terrye, IIRC, pointed this out some long time ago. People get tired of all the shrieking and they just want it to stop.

But who they are annoyed and wish would just stop their silly hissey-fits alters and changes. It gets associated with Bush at an overall level in sort of the same way we might find ourselves a bit peeved with the notion of "marriage" after a few trying weeks of wife and kids pissing us off.

That sorta settles in and we know it isn't really marriage that is the issue yet we develop a long list of marriage jokes and rarely ever accord it the status it had on the wedding day and through the honeymoon and first year or so.

This is the effect that drives down a president's second term approval ratings and more or less why Bush can't quite get to 50 anymore.

But it is not the entire effect. We realize that it isn't marriage that is the problem but, rather, the kids being a brat or the wife being overworked and tired and such. We understand the bits and pieces of the overall thing.

And therein lies the problem for the MSM and the Dems with this "strategy". Yes, it has the effect they desire to some degree but it has effects they don't desire. The audience and the electorate know who is doing the shrieking that is giving them the headache.

Yeah, if we weren't married with children there'd be no shrieking brats but it is the shrieking brats we wind up tossing into their rooms with stern instructions to not come out until they decide to shutup.

People associate this overall pall of shrieking with Bush, but he ain't running for nuttin' no more. Even if people want to "punish" him, there's no way to do it. But they keep hearing the brats making a noisey fuss and them they can punish.

The Dems and the MSM just aren't smart enough to recognize the nuances. They think we're a bunch of morons when, in fact, it is they who are morons. They're giving us a headache but they're killing themselves.

BTW, finally went and read the rollback piece and followed the Mark in Mexico link at the bottom. Good stuff. Thanks.

CF said...

Or, to put it more simply..they cried "wolf" once too often. LOL