My Photo
Blog powered by Typepad

May 2005

Sun Mon Tue Wed Thu Fri Sat
1 2 3 4 5 6 7
8 9 10 11 12 13 14
15 16 17 18 19 20 21
22 23 24 25 26 27 28
29 30 31        

« America the Idiotic | Main | Apple's War on Journalism, Continued »

April 14, 2005



"There are of course inherent risks in this strategy -- chief among them maintaining our standards for accuracy and reliability."

Oh, Rupert, you're SUCH a card!


And who would you hold up for high standards of accuracy? The "paper of record", the NY Times, has an abysmal record - and when they're wrong, like most papers, either there is no reference to the problem or the corrections are buried.


Fox News is so over the top that did a documentary which goes into great detail in explaining what Fox News does. The documentary is called "Outfoxed". I saw it and they had a lot of facts to support their thesis that Fox News is deliberately biased towards the right wing.


Craig, come on, MoveOn has about as much credibility as Michael Moore.

I think it should be clear by now that there really is no such thing as objectivity. I heard a clip this morning of Leslie Stahl who was on (I think) Hardball (Chris Matthews' show) and she pointed out that she really shouldn't be on a show like that giving her opinion.

I have to laugh, though. People point out Fox News as being conservative but totally miss that a chunk of the mainstream media is filled with lefties. Competition is good!


It's sad how you guys twist a speech on media revolution into the tired old leftwing/rightwing nonsense.

Obviously, Murdoch is preparing for a landgrab. He wants a piece of the cake:
"The data may show that young people aren’t reading newspapers as much as their predecessors, but it doesn’t show they don’t want news. In fact, they want a lot of news, just faster news of a different kind and delivered in a different way.

And we in this room – newspaper editors and journalists – are uniquely positioned to deliver that news. We have the experience, the brands, the resources, and the know-how to get it done. We have unique content to differentiate ourselves in a world where news is becoming increasingly commoditized."

And who's going to pay for it all? The advertising industry, of course.

"n the same way we need to be relevant to our readers, the internet provides the opportunity for us to be more relevant to our advertisers. Plainly, the internet allows us to be more granular in our advertising, targeting potential consumers based on where they’ve surfed and what products they’ve bought. The ability to more precisely target customers using technology- powered forms of advertising represents a great opportunity for us to maintain and even grow market share and is clearly the future of advertising."

So big media wants to take over grassroots journalism, and pay for it all with "better" advertising. Hooray.

Big Gav

Outfoxed is a great documentary but its sometimes good to look at the bigger picture (Fox "News" is the worst example of what is going on in the media but its not the only one) - check out "Orwell Rolls In His Grave" if you're interested in this sort of thing.

Dan Gillmor

Big media can't "take over" the grassroots stuff, because the barrier to entry is so low. But big media can adopt it. There's a difference.

Vidar Hokstad

As a European I'm constantly amazed at how there are always someone crawling out of the woodwork calling US media "leftist" (or "liberal", which to people from Europe makes it even more confusing, as it seems to be considered the same thing in the US while people considering themselves leftists and liberals in Europe would often both take offence at being lumped together) whenever a debate like this is started.

Personally, I have yet to see a what I'd consider a "leftist" US newspaper or TV station from a European point of view, except for stuff nobody reads like the papers of assorted miniscule socialist groups.

On the contrary, every time I go to the US I'm shocked at the consistently far right agendas being blatantly pushed by almost all mainstream US media. It was particularly noteworthy after September 11th, when even what little criticism you'd find anywhere in mainstream media was framed in a way that made it look as if I was visiting another planet going by the news reporting.

Apparently, in the US "leftist" in the context of media criticism must mean "left of the center of the Republican party"...

I find it particularly noteworthy, because I'm used to having a wide spread from far left to far right in European media - the far left being communist daily newspapers, some of (like l'Humanite in France) have a fairly decent circulation, or a bit more mainstream papers like the Guardian that are still miles left of any major US papers I know off, the far right being represented by major newspapers such as the Daily Telegraph in the UK, and on TV Sky News (in effect a clone of Fox - I don't think Sky is wholly News Corp. owned, but there are tight relationships there) etc., and smaller, more extreme right wing papers.

I've yet to see anything resembling that span of opinions in the US mainstream. I'm aware of smaller fringe papers, but then again that's not what I'm talking about - if so, there are plenty of far more extreme papers both on the left and on the right. I purposefully ignored the Morning Star in the UK, for instance (a communist paper) because it's distribution is tiny and most people wouldn't know about it (contrary to l'Humanite in France, which has widespread nationwide distribution and is widely read).

I really wonder why the US market is so homogenous, considering that the size of the population ought to make it possible for some fairly large niche papers to survive.

The comments to this entry are closed.