Wednesday, September 21, 2005

Dan's Crying. How Sad.

Dan Rather cries because the peons are now challenging the news organizations on their agendas instead of merely genuflecting before them. Oh, and now there's competition.

What a loser.

4 comments:

Ronnie said...

Wow, I'm sorry but I have to strongly disagree with what you wrote. Did you even read that? Or did you just see "occasionally forcing back tears" and run with it? The article is about the fear journalists have in this day about writing anything that will offend anyone. I believe this to be a major issue, and something that is slowly destroying media. Sure we don't want guesses and unconfirmed news, but we don't want talking points from any group without any analysis, that's not news. I suggest reading it again, but maybe you just have a thing against Dan. Why do you think blogs are doing so well? They lack the pressure and influence from anyone, making them fearless. Also comments allow for further analysis and correction. The fact is it's so pure and raw, like what news used to be like. Hopefully more people cry out against the slow dulling of our media and maybe we will actually have journalists willing to break the tough story no one really wants to hear but should.

Darren said...

I read the whole thing, Ronnie. And I think it is YOU who is mistaken.

Dan doesn't like competition from cable news channels. He doesn't like pressure from politicians. He doesn't like having to justify what he puts on the news. Sad face.

Blogs are the opposite. Blogs exist because there's no editorial pressure. We're accountable to our readers--who just plain won't show up if we say stupid things, and will point out our mistakes to the entire blogsphere if we make them. That's true accountability.

Sure, I dislike Rather. He lost his nobility long ago, and he's a dinosaur who still longs for the cretaceous. I for one am glad that period is gone--too hot and muggy for my taste.

Amerloc said...

I'm with Darren. I'm not at all sure I like the idea that political pressure from any side, from any ideology, on the conglomerates who own the media, would alter the way news is presented.

I would really prefer market pressure, rather than political pressure...

Paul Chenoweth said...

Dan had a good run. He helped what was broadcast 'news' evolve into little more than entertainment, more heavily influenced by ratings and advertising dollars than political pressure(s). He has reason to be sad...but needs to accept some of the responsibility/accountability for broadcast entertain-news-ment being what it has become today.