In the near future, dead-tree media will have ceased to exist and online journalists will report the news using nothing but emoticons and GIFs. The few remaining old-school holdouts who insist on using complete, complex sentences will be denounced by the social-media hordes for the thoughtcrime of "syntactic privilege," which discriminates against anyone with a sub-genius IQ, and banished to Antarctica for the remainder of their sorry-ass lives.
To be clear, the term "legacy media" includes a rightie outlet like Fox. Fox, like the other legacy establishments, tries to pass itself off as "fair and balanced" when it so obviously isn't. It's all propaganda at this point, what with the mainstream media largely covering for Hillary Clinton as they are.* My problem isn't necessarily with the bias; it's more a disgust at the pretense of unbiased coverage. If the legacy media were to drop the mask and simply announce their agendas, I wouldn't wish so hard for them all to die. The alternative is to tolerate the current situation, in which we all know everyone is biased, but the media, pro forma, deny this. I think that that denial has a pernicious effect on public discourse because it adds a layer of deceit to it.**
I'm not saying the new media represent a clearly healthy alternative, but at least the vloggers on YouTube and the folks at their small websites make no bones about where they stand.
**Another alternative would be for all media to clean house and become as fair and objective as possible. But I don't see that happening. Ever. Glenn Reynolds wryly notes that media bias is a good reason to vote for Trump: President Hillary's gaffes and shenanigans will be suppressed and/or excused by the fawning news outlets, but President Trump will be forced into transparency by media that will relentlessly hold his feet to the fire.
WHAT CORN AND PEANUTS ARE HIDDEN IN THE WARM AND STEAMING PILE? Vapid cultural commentary, pungent reviews, sundry Korea-related musings, fartological/scatological humor, political flatulence, and nondualistic Zen excretions in prose or poetry form.
Got a beef? Write the Hominid at bighominid@gmail.com, and put "HAIRY CHASMS" in the subject line, or your mail will be automatically trashed by Satan, my beautiful but deadly spam filter. Assume your mail will be published (editing at my discretion), unless you specify otherwise. Welcome to my backside.
BLOGROLLING POLICY: I don't do mutual linkage, and I have no problem with asymmetrical linkage: I link to bloggers who don't link back, and that's fine by me. Please DO NOT ask to be linked. Please DO NOT expect linkage just because you've linked to me. Also, if I don't link to you, please do not assume I think your blog sucks.
COMMENTS POLICY: My blog is my house; I'm responsible for keeping my dwelling clean. Commenters are guests, and guests of this blog will be civil, succinct, and relevant. All comments are subject to approval; I reserve the right to publish or not publish—in a pristine or altered form—all comments (and emails intended as comments) that I receive. Act like an asshole on my turf, and I'll make you look like the asshole you are. Be cool, and we won't have a problem. Simple, yes? And before I forget:
NO ANONYMOUS COMMENTS. Take responsibility for what you say. Screen names are OK, but no sock puppetry. Use the same SN consistently.
5 comments:
Fair enough, although I cut my teeth in both newspaper and magazine publishing. I admit to a little sorrow.
In the near future, dead-tree media will have ceased to exist and online journalists will report the news using nothing but emoticons and GIFs. The few remaining old-school holdouts who insist on using complete, complex sentences will be denounced by the social-media hordes for the thoughtcrime of "syntactic privilege," which discriminates against anyone with a sub-genius IQ, and banished to Antarctica for the remainder of their sorry-ass lives.
I think a little elaboration is in order here. Why "good riddance"?
Charles,
There
are
many
reasons.
Or maybe they're all just one reason.
Or maybe I've just seen too many Styxhexenhammer666 videos.
To be clear, the term "legacy media" includes a rightie outlet like Fox. Fox, like the other legacy establishments, tries to pass itself off as "fair and balanced" when it so obviously isn't. It's all propaganda at this point, what with the mainstream media largely covering for Hillary Clinton as they are.* My problem isn't necessarily with the bias; it's more a disgust at the pretense of unbiased coverage. If the legacy media were to drop the mask and simply announce their agendas, I wouldn't wish so hard for them all to die. The alternative is to tolerate the current situation, in which we all know everyone is biased, but the media, pro forma, deny this. I think that that denial has a pernicious effect on public discourse because it adds a layer of deceit to it.**
I'm not saying the new media represent a clearly healthy alternative, but at least the vloggers on YouTube and the folks at their small websites make no bones about where they stand.
__________
*True, Hillary's reflexive tendency to be secretive sometimes means she worries about what the normally friendly media might find out about her.
**Another alternative would be for all media to clean house and become as fair and objective as possible. But I don't see that happening. Ever. Glenn Reynolds wryly notes that media bias is a good reason to vote for Trump: President Hillary's gaffes and shenanigans will be suppressed and/or excused by the fawning news outlets, but President Trump will be forced into transparency by media that will relentlessly hold his feet to the fire.
Thanks for the clarification. I don't agree with everything there, but I do see where you're coming from.
Post a Comment