Crichton believes that we live in an age of conformity much more confining than the 1950s in which he grew up. Instead of showing news consumers how to approach controversy coolly and intelligently, the media partake of the zealotry and intolerance of many of the advocates they cover. He attributes the public's interest in Mike Huckabee, Ron Paul, and the Rev. Jeremiah Wright to its hunger for a wider range of viewpoints than the mass media provide.I'll admit that normally I dont hold any great love for Michael Crichton, but here I'm going to side with him. He believes that the major media outlets, newspapers and the big TV networks, havent got long to live. I find that this idea doesnt really bother me much.
props to Pryme.
5 comments:
Thanks, Dave.
He does have a good point: the media is more focused on side stories and anecdotes than series issues. As long as the media is own by corporations looking for profit (and not looking to inform the public) things will continue down this path.
I agree that the media hasn't been objective for years and that the try to steer public opinion in the direction most likely to be chosen by those in power (either by election or wealth).
This was my 2nd favorite quote from the interview:
"Look at how many stories are unsourced or have unnamed sources. Look at how many stories are about what 'may' or 'might' or 'could' happen," he says. "Might and could means the story is speculation. Framing as I described means the story is opinion. And opinion is not factual content."
This one is sooo true. It's why CNN and the other 24-hour stations are so unwatchable. The news is no longer news, in the sense of being the facts of the events, partially because there's just not enough of it for the time they have to fill. It's now a device for manipulating opinion, or showing off how "smart" the presenters are, filler for the 24-7 hole that they have to fill up every day (generally, real events are relatively slow and and in short supply; opinion is endless).
Perhaps 24-hour news channels are the victims of their own success.
Tim Russert is constantly reporting on the campaigns as if he's wearing hand puppets.
Little Russ: "If Campaign A says X then insiders in Campaign B are sure to say Y."
And no one ever remarks that everything he says is complete fantasy on his part.
why does the train car scene in "How To Get Ahead In Advertising" come to mind?
Post a Comment