Just Who Is This Media Anyway?
Rush Limpjaw and Bill O. had their tender egos hurt this week when The MediaTM pointed out the stupid things they said, respectively, about soldiers and black-owned restaurants. They’re certainly not alone in shooting the messenger. It’s an equal-opportunity hunt with plenty of ammunition for people on both sides of the Grand Canyon of Ideology. But the surprising thing about these enemies of Mercury is that they spout off about The MediaTM as though they weren’t part of it. I’d say anyone with a TV show, radio show, a slew of blogs, books, magazines, and tchotchke stands (backed by a huge communications conglomerate) qualifies as a Grade A Prime media member. Both men certainly fit the bill, but they somehow fail to see the irony of lambasting themselves.
Back when The MediaTM was called The PressTM it was pretty clear who belonged to the elite club. If you wrote something and cajoled someone into rattling off a few copies, you were the media because paper was the only game in town.
Spewing Onto Ephemeral Paper
Eventually, a few readers and press owners decided that spewing onto ephemeral paper wasn’t quite fun enough - it’s hard to get a good screed going if you only type 20 wpm. So they recruited some prehistoric pundits to pit against one another. Once thrown in the ring, they put on a show as impressive as anything Michael Vick ever threw together.
Paper begat radio, which begat television, which begat the Internet, which begat the all-encompassing term, The MediaTM. The different media started mating like pairs of hillbilly cousins waiting for Noah’s invitation to the ark launching. Before we knew it, media DNA was mutating at extraordinary rates. It’s produced weird concoctions of dubious usefulness. Do were really need Useless Today? How about Paul Harvey? Bumper stickers? Blogs? Wolf Blitzer? DR. FREAKIN’ PHIL??!!!!!
This multimedia copulation has birthed a fractious communications landscape - one where we no longer have a workable definition of “media”, who belongs to it, or what their roles are. The right says The MediaTM is a bunch of left-leaning surrender monkeys who fabricate everything out of whole cloth. The left describes The MediaTM as a right wing bastion of corporatism run-amok where nearly every practitioner is being bought off by someone or is too dense to ask an intelligent question.
The Beatings Will Continue Until the Media is Driven Out
Talk show hosts browbeat journalists (although they seem OK with them as long as they agree). Journalists think bloggers are crackpots who can’t be trusted any more than OJ at a deposition. TV bashes print. Newspapers bash magazines. Magazines bash books. And they all hate Perez Hilton and Matt Drudge (or at least should if they have any common sense).
We’ve become the communications equivalent of Iraq - everyone’s hunkered down pot-shoting the neighboring tribes (except Rush and Bill, who are about as cautious as Blackwater’s CEO stalking correspondents with Dick Cheney).
Although we don’t really know or agree on what The MediaTM is, let’s agree on these things.
Can’t We All Just Get Along?
Whether you get your information from an iGadget or take the Luddite, techno-dolt, paper route, you’re a fool to rely too heavily on a single source. If media is nothing else, it’s a reflection of those who consume it and you have to admit there are lots of people being reflected that you’d just as soon not invite over for Sunday dinner. Do you hear me George?!
The other thing to remember is that in today’s world, we’re all The MediaTM. We feed each other and feed on each other. So be responsible. Try to get things right. Don’t spread too much gossip, unless it’s about LiLo or Britney. Listen to your fellow mediateers, even if you think they’re full of technicolor crap, because they have an opinion and even morons are right some of the time.
And as they used to say on that venerable medium, TV, “Good luck and let’s be careful out there.”
See other fine hypertext products at The Omnipotent Poobah Speaks!
September 29th, 2007 at 1:28 pm
Hell yes, we need Paul Harvey. I want to know the rest of the story. And how can I have a good day without Paul wishing me one?
Okay, that’s a joke. I can live without Paul Harvey, although he is one of the more beloved media characters from when I was growing up and I really did find his “Rest of the Story” spots to be extremely interesting. But how can you question whether we need blogs? You’re a blogger. Might as well question whether we need oxygen. :^)
September 29th, 2007 at 1:46 pm
About Rush Limbaugh, did you read the WaPo article that you linked? Rush Limbaugh was referring to a soldier who was convicted of phonying up his military experience in order to look more credible when lying about war crimes he’d witnessed in Iraq (although he hadn’t been to Iraq — or even out of boot-camp) and participated in. You know, there’s nothing wrong about referring to boot-camp wash-outs who manufacture lies about their non-existent service in order to slime actual, honestly serving men and women in the military with lies, as phony soldiers. They ARE phony soldiers, in this guy’s case, self-admitted phonies. You can stop smearing Rush Limbaugh now.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:49 pm
And Edwards is a smart guy: law school, successful litigator and politician. If this guy can’t distinguish between calling the top commander in Iraq a betrayer and a liar on the one hand and calling a phony soldier a phony soldier on the other, I don’t know what else to say.
September 29th, 2007 at 1:52 pm
You do, however, make some interesting points about the media. I enjoyed reading your post. Thanks for blogging.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:15 pm
And, lest anyone think that Jesse McBeth is a lone phony soldier, there’s this. Any Republican in Congress who decide to condemn Rush Limbaugh for his “phony soldiers” comment needs a swift kick in the ass and if the kick happens to hit their nuts, oh well…those things happen.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:22 pm
And I love the pop-up comments that you’ve attached to the links in your post! Very clever. I like that sort of attention to detail.
September 29th, 2007 at 2:52 pm
Craig,
I came into the middle of his phony soldier discussion on the radio and didn’t hear the portion where he was directing his comments to those particular soldiers and events, so I can’t speak directly to them.
However, I was listening when a caller asked him why the only soldiers the “liberal media” ever talked to were the ones against the war. His response was that they spoke ONLY to “phony soldiers”. A comment that I seems a little overblown since I’ve personally seen interviews with active soldiers, with clean records, and in some cases, meritorious service in Iraq voice opposition. Rush’s answer makes this sound as though those soldiers are phony too.
My view is that he’s entitled to his opinion of the soldiers. Worse claims have been made. I’d also defend his right to claim it’s the media’s fault. I’m just pointing out that his complaints about smears (especially when he’s there slinging mud with the best of them) makes him sound like a crybaby who can’t take the heat from those of an opposing viewpoint.
The point to the post was that many talkers (both sides of the aisle mind you) try to blame the media when they say controversial things. The problem is, they ARE the media. Their complaints often suggest that THE MEDIA (meaning themselves or those agreeing with their position) are fine, but “the media” that doesn’t agree is engaging in a smear campaign.
Me, I feel like if you say incendiary things, own what you say. Don’t blame it on someone else if what you said turns into a quagmire. He’s in the media, he routinely smears people, and I figure he’s got a big enough soapbox to fend for himself without blaming others.
As for Edwards, I think anyone throwing stones over whatever outrageous things organizations say or do is a little disingenuous. There are dozens of examples across the political spectrum of organizations accusing people unjustly. MoveOn did it, the swiftboaters did it. I thought they were both wrong and I think anyone demanding an apology, or worse yet, signing a Congressional condemnation is as guilty as the ones who said the stupid things.
And the jibe at Paul was a joke. I actually kinda like the crazy old coot.
I like your comments. You make good points, and as often as not, I end up feeling we’re not all that far apart on some issues. It’s nice to have an exchange of ideas rather than an exchange of verbal fisticuffs.
September 29th, 2007 at 3:13 pm
Omni,
Thanks for the clarification.
On Paul Harvey, I can remember mornings at home eating breakfast before school listening to WGN radio (890 on the am dial) in the Chicago area waiting for “The Rest of the Story”. Paul’s stories were always interesting (even to a kid) and I almost could never guess what the rest of the story was. He’d always break before filling in the rest for an advert of some sort and I’d be racking my brains wondering, anticipating the rest. I can remember thinking that if my history teachers could teach like this, I wouldn’t be nearly flunking history because they nearly put me in a comma each day.
Blog on, O omnipotent one!
October 2nd, 2007 at 9:47 am
Amazing how Hary Reid didn’t condemn ABC of the same thing:
http://abcnews.go.com/Blotter/popup?id=3210247