Citizen journalism takes hold in the 4th estate
My friend St. Scott is the latest recipient of The 6th Estate's prestigious "Faith Popcorn, eat your heart out! Award*" for noticing the latest trend in citizen journalism.
Print media, the 4th estate, apparently is feeling the pinch of blogging as an outlet for the disgruntled voices of middle America and is seeking to welcome the voices of the conservative. Bloggers compete for reader attention, and if readers are reading blogs instead of print media, then print media can't sell that audience to advertisers and make money. Or if they contribute stories to blogs, they aren't contributing them to print media. So now the diversity of the newsroom will include the voices of the old, the conservative and the religious. Lenin and Marx would turn over in their graves!
The Wall Street Journal Online reports that several newspapers are asking its readers to submit articles for publication. They include the Bakersfield Californian, the Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record and Morris Publishing Group LLC. The WSJO writes:
Should I, as a blogger, be worried that the mainstream media are entering this domain and trying to reach out to readers? Not no, but hell no! I'm happy as a clam at high tide about the trend. Newspapers are once again trying to connect with readers, and if blogging forces them to do it, all the better.
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times bemoans the notion that readers believe journalists think of themselves as elites. Actually, readers know journalists think of themselves as elites. If you read the major newspapers or listened to the nightly news from the three major networks, you'd think that nearly all America was anti-war, disliked President Bush, was anti-religious ... until President Bush was re-elected handily over John Kerry, an elite connected Boston-brahmin and liberal east coaster. And then the pundits realized we're not a nation of Tom Hayden clones married to clones of Jane Fonda.
Is it any wonder that print media have been losing readers and the network news programs have been losing viewers? As I pointed out in my earlier posts "The Cinderella story that wasn't" and "The Journalism Stockholm Syndrome," the mainstream media have an incestuous relationship with Washington politics, notably liberal, extreme left Democratic and elite politics.
No high school in the United States would offer a separate prom for gay and lesbian couples but this month the American Society of Newspaper Editors, for the first time in its 83 year history, will host a reception specifically for its gay and lesbian members at its annual meeting. It's not just including the gay and lesbian singles and couples as part of a general reception, it's holding a special reception in an apparently forced way of showing just how liberal, accepting and diverse the organization is.
Maybe that's the reason newspapers like the Washington Post continue to push to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, like it did in an editorial today. They just don't get it. It has nothing to do with some kind of homophobia; at the very least it's a privacy matter. As I wrote to the Post in a letter to the editor that I doubt they will ever publish, even though I double-dog dared them:
The Washington Post's argument is that preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military is costing the country millions of dollars to prosecute violators of the screwy Clinton "Don't ask, don't tell" legacy. What it doesn't address is just how much money would be saved if there were no separate lavatory or berthing facilities for males and females. I expect it would be billions. Of course, the liberals wouldn't approve the introduction of any unisex lavatory and berthing facilities because women wouldn't join the military. But they're wholeheartedly supporting homosexuality in the military. That's what the agenda of the Post editorial writer is: supporting homosexuality in the military. Because you can't support homosexuals in the military without supporting homosexuality in the military. I would doubt the writer of that editorial ever served in the military. I would doubt that many on the editorial staff of the Washington Post served in the military or would ever serve, but they want to force that liberalism down the throats of those who do serve. They treat the military of this nation as some kind of grand social experiment rather than an important arm of its political and economic will and self-defense.
Newspapers aren't reflective of middle America but they try to reach a middle America audience and sell it to advertisers. It wasn't that long ago that a survey was published proving that most journalists and editors would call themselves liberal. And they wonder what happened to America, why America all of a sudden grew so conservative.
It's not that America has all of a sudden grown conservative. America has always been conservative. "Mom, apple pie and hot dogs" is not a saying that would be uttered from the lips of a liberal east or west coast elite unless it was in a statement of disdain for who they would call "uneducated red state country bumpkins." It's the media that have changed and grown more liberal than the audience they try to reach. In their move to "more diversity" they have pushed middle America out of the newsroom entirely and replaced it with liberal left coast and east coast elitism.
Maybe the publishers and the owners of the print media and the broadcast outlets are finally getting the message from the bottomline: no red-staters on the editorial staff means red ink.
[*Note to St. Scott: All you get is an "Attaboy!" in an e-mail and a mention here. No swag; can't set a precedent. Okay, fine, I'll send you some popcorn. I've got a 50 pound bag from Sam's Club I've had for a year and I've hardly put a dent in it. I have to get rid of it somehow so I'll dole it out on special occasions like this. But that's it! I hear any more grumbling about cash, money or loot, I'll have the governor of Wisconsin send you a cat.]
Print media, the 4th estate, apparently is feeling the pinch of blogging as an outlet for the disgruntled voices of middle America and is seeking to welcome the voices of the conservative. Bloggers compete for reader attention, and if readers are reading blogs instead of print media, then print media can't sell that audience to advertisers and make money. Or if they contribute stories to blogs, they aren't contributing them to print media. So now the diversity of the newsroom will include the voices of the old, the conservative and the religious. Lenin and Marx would turn over in their graves!
The Wall Street Journal Online reports that several newspapers are asking its readers to submit articles for publication. They include the Bakersfield Californian, the Greensboro (N.C.) News & Record and Morris Publishing Group LLC. The WSJO writes:
James C. Currow, executive vice president of newspapers at Augusta, Ga.'s Morris Publishing Group LLC, is an unlikely proponent of (the idea that journalists and newspapers don't hold a monopoly on knowledge). This week, his company pulled the plug on the Carolina Morning News, a 10-year-old daily newspaper in Bluffton, S.C., with a circulation of 6,000 and replaced it with a flashy Web site and matching newspaper called Bluffton Today. As part of the launch, Bluffton Today's staff passed out digital cameras to the community's best gossips -- "the unofficial cruise directors," Mr. Currow calls them -- and told them to snap away, then upload their photos to BlufftonToday.com. The site also hosts blogs by local residents, and Mr. Currow says he'd like to solicit articles written by readers in the future.
Should I, as a blogger, be worried that the mainstream media are entering this domain and trying to reach out to readers? Not no, but hell no! I'm happy as a clam at high tide about the trend. Newspapers are once again trying to connect with readers, and if blogging forces them to do it, all the better.
Nicholas Kristof of the New York Times bemoans the notion that readers believe journalists think of themselves as elites. Actually, readers know journalists think of themselves as elites. If you read the major newspapers or listened to the nightly news from the three major networks, you'd think that nearly all America was anti-war, disliked President Bush, was anti-religious ... until President Bush was re-elected handily over John Kerry, an elite connected Boston-brahmin and liberal east coaster. And then the pundits realized we're not a nation of Tom Hayden clones married to clones of Jane Fonda.
Is it any wonder that print media have been losing readers and the network news programs have been losing viewers? As I pointed out in my earlier posts "The Cinderella story that wasn't" and "The Journalism Stockholm Syndrome," the mainstream media have an incestuous relationship with Washington politics, notably liberal, extreme left Democratic and elite politics.
No high school in the United States would offer a separate prom for gay and lesbian couples but this month the American Society of Newspaper Editors, for the first time in its 83 year history, will host a reception specifically for its gay and lesbian members at its annual meeting. It's not just including the gay and lesbian singles and couples as part of a general reception, it's holding a special reception in an apparently forced way of showing just how liberal, accepting and diverse the organization is.
Maybe that's the reason newspapers like the Washington Post continue to push to allow gays and lesbians to serve openly in the military, like it did in an editorial today. They just don't get it. It has nothing to do with some kind of homophobia; at the very least it's a privacy matter. As I wrote to the Post in a letter to the editor that I doubt they will ever publish, even though I double-dog dared them:
As a veteran of the U.S. Navy I would whole-heartedly support homosexuals serving openly in the military ... as soon as Congress passes a law forcing Sen. Hillary Clinton (D-N.Y.) to shower with me. And, in case you're wondering, I'm not sexually attracted to her at all.
I'm not a homophobe. It's a matter of privacy. And there is none in the military. Lavatory and sleeping facilities are separated for males and females based on sexual roles, heretofore historically defined by gender. There is no other reason for this separation. Apparently, liberal society has determined that gender roles no longer distinguish the sexuality of a human; that the sexuality of human distinguishes the sexuality of a human. Thus, either new separate facilities should be constructed allowing privacy based on varying sexuality or all barriers must come down. Given the economics of the situation, the latter must be the accepted course.
The Washington Post's argument is that preventing gays and lesbians from serving openly in the military is costing the country millions of dollars to prosecute violators of the screwy Clinton "Don't ask, don't tell" legacy. What it doesn't address is just how much money would be saved if there were no separate lavatory or berthing facilities for males and females. I expect it would be billions. Of course, the liberals wouldn't approve the introduction of any unisex lavatory and berthing facilities because women wouldn't join the military. But they're wholeheartedly supporting homosexuality in the military. That's what the agenda of the Post editorial writer is: supporting homosexuality in the military. Because you can't support homosexuals in the military without supporting homosexuality in the military. I would doubt the writer of that editorial ever served in the military. I would doubt that many on the editorial staff of the Washington Post served in the military or would ever serve, but they want to force that liberalism down the throats of those who do serve. They treat the military of this nation as some kind of grand social experiment rather than an important arm of its political and economic will and self-defense.
Newspapers aren't reflective of middle America but they try to reach a middle America audience and sell it to advertisers. It wasn't that long ago that a survey was published proving that most journalists and editors would call themselves liberal. And they wonder what happened to America, why America all of a sudden grew so conservative.
It's not that America has all of a sudden grown conservative. America has always been conservative. "Mom, apple pie and hot dogs" is not a saying that would be uttered from the lips of a liberal east or west coast elite unless it was in a statement of disdain for who they would call "uneducated red state country bumpkins." It's the media that have changed and grown more liberal than the audience they try to reach. In their move to "more diversity" they have pushed middle America out of the newsroom entirely and replaced it with liberal left coast and east coast elitism.
Maybe the publishers and the owners of the print media and the broadcast outlets are finally getting the message from the bottomline: no red-staters on the editorial staff means red ink.
[*Note to St. Scott: All you get is an "Attaboy!" in an e-mail and a mention here. No swag; can't set a precedent. Okay, fine, I'll send you some popcorn. I've got a 50 pound bag from Sam's Club I've had for a year and I've hardly put a dent in it. I have to get rid of it somehow so I'll dole it out on special occasions like this. But that's it! I hear any more grumbling about cash, money or loot, I'll have the governor of Wisconsin send you a cat.]
---
posted by NEWS4A2, blood-sucking journalist @ 21:55
0 comments
0 Comments:
Post a Comment
<< Home