Toronto Escorts

Dropping the anchorman

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
Great article from the Economist:
OTB

Nov 25th 2004
From The Economist print edition
Dan Rather's retirement marks a welcome change in American journalism
FOR conservative America, it just keeps on getting better. A mere 20 days after the Republicans' clean sweep of the White House and Congress, the American right celebrated the retirement of one of the hated grandees of liberal journalism, Dan Rather. “It's as if the voters just keep on voting,� says one conservative. “And our side just keeps on winning.�
The right has been after Mr Rather's scalp for decades. The CBS veteran made his name beating up Richard Nixon in the Watergate era and has kept CBS News on the liberal straight-and-narrow as its longstanding news anchor. (Accuracy in Media, a conservative-watchdog group, first started its “Can Dan� campaign 16 years ago.) Mr Rather's career highlights include a shouting match with George Bush senior over Iran-contra and an interview with Saddam Hussein shortly before last year's American invasion. Now the 73-year-old has announced that he will be retiring from his anchoring job next March.
Next March will be exactly 24 years since Mr Rather took over from Walter Cronkite. But Mr Rather's reputation has not recovered from a “60 Minutes� documentary (made by CBS) which tried to raise questions about George Bush junior's service in the Texas National Guard. Mr Rather claimed to have documents proving that Mr Bush had violated a direct order to take a physical examination, and also that his superiors had been put under pressure to “sugarcoat� his evaluation. But within 14 hours internet sleuths had shown that the documents were forgeries. Mr Rather stood by his story for 12 excruciating days, while his supporters arrogantly contrasted the network's rigorous fact-checking with “a guy sitting in his living room in his pyjamas writing�. But the pyjama guy turned out to be right.
Mr Rather's retirement epitomises two broader shifts of power. First, the old media are losing power to the new. And, second, the liberal media establishment is losing power to a more diverse cacophony of new voices.
For most of the post-war era the American media were dominated by a comfortable liberal consensus. The New York Times was the undisputed king of the print news, while the network anchors lorded it over TV news. That consensus is now under siege. The attacks are partly coming from the cable networks—particularly from conservative Fox News. (Charles Krauthammer once quipped that Rupert Murdoch had spotted a niche market—half the country. Sure enough, Fox is now America's top-rated cable news network.) But old media also face a newer and more unpredictable source of competition—the blogosphere. Bloggers have discovered that all you need to set yourself up as a pundit is a website and an attitude.
All through the recent election campaign, the new media outsmarted the old media when it came to setting the news agenda. Republican strategists admit that the Swift Boat veterans' attacks on John Kerry, largely ignored by the old media, would never have got anywhere without the online Drudge Report. Drudge was also instrumental in turning the “60 Minutes� story into an embarrassment for the Democrats, not Mr Bush. Local bloggers also had an effect; in South Dakota, for instance, they repeatedly highlighted Tom Daschle's partisan record in Washington, DC, something that the Democratic Senate majority leader's friends in the local print media had never laboured to expose.
The bloggers have often been at their most devastating when they have been criticising the old media for bias. Their favourite target has long been the New York Times, where they helped to remove the paper's previous editor, Howell Raines. But CBS is also a juicy target. Why, the bloggers are now demanding, is Mr Rather being allowed to keep a full-time job working for “60 Minutes�, the very programme whose reputation he has besmirched? “This is not a victory,� proclaims Rathergate.com, before declaring its intention to keep attacking CBS.

cont.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
cont.

I'd rather not be Rather
Given America's fractious politics, it is easy to look at Mr Rather's retirement merely in terms of a left v right scorecard. But, more fundamentally, it is about choice.
Mr Rather's announcement of his (partial) retirement comes just a few days before Tom Brokaw resigns from his job anchoring NBC's evening news. That leaves ABC's Peter Jennings as the only survivor of the long-established triumvirate. But nobody imagines that the arrival of new blood at CBS and NBC will revive the fortunes of the network news. Most Americans now get their news from an ever-proliferating range of sources: not just Fox or CNN, but also foreign newspapers and even the innumerable original documents that are now available at the touch of a button. And fewer people regard any single news source—be it CBS News or the New York Times—as the embodiment of truth.
The erosion of the old media establishment probably does entail some shift to the right, if only because so many of the newer voices are more reliably pro-Republican than Mr Rather. But the new media are simply too anarchic and subversive for any single political faction to take control of them. There are plenty of leftish bloggers too: such people helped Howard Dean's presidential campaign. And the most successful conservative bloggers are far from being party loyalists: look at the way in 2002 that they kept the heat on the Republicans' then Senate leader, Trent Lott, for racist remarks that the New York Times originally buried. It is a safe bet that, if the current Bush administration goes the way of previous second-term administrations and becomes consumed by scandals, conservative bloggers will be in the forefront of the scandal-mongering.
Mr Rather's passing does not mean that the liberal orthodoxy is about to give way to a new conservative one. It means that all orthodoxies are being chewed up by a voraciously unpredictable news media, which is surely all to the good.
 

n_v

Banned
Aug 26, 2001
2,006
0
36
Now the right gets weed smoking rocking dude J.D. Roberts in his place. ...... A Canadian :) .. fitting I think.
 

papasmerf

New member
Oct 22, 2002
26,533
0
0
42.55.65N 78.43.73W
Hell
Rush announced his Rathers intent to retire just as dan broke his forged papers from the guard.
 

jwmorrice

Gentleman by Profession
Jun 30, 2003
7,133
1
0
In the laboratory.
Guess it's an example for the right of...

n_v said:
Now the right gets weed smoking rocking dude J.D. Roberts in his place. ...... A Canadian :) .. fitting I think.
Careful what you wish for!

jwm
 

Peeping Tom

Boil them in Oil
Dec 24, 2002
803
0
0
Hellholes of the earth
This paragraph touched on something previously unseen in the history of politics. Future historians will liken this to the Reformation. The entity that the Economist author alludes to is something we (in my sphere of cronies) refer to as the cultural clergy.

The cultural clergy came to dominance sometime between the world wars and its arrival was undetected in the period of turmoil. Nothing was new here, it was merely a copy of what was going on in europe. Over there, those backwards, inbred hicks, accustomed to centuries of rule under the boot of their princes and popes, enchanted with paternalism and feudalism; continued in their tradition of taking orders, of taking a heckofa lot of guff of off proffesors and journalists. The latter groups simply assumed the old role, becoming the clergy of new, chanting spells and voodoo (one must note that the Whig literature was purely an export product, seemingly no europeans read it).

For a while this approach worked well in America. Americans, in their flight into the era of prosperity, paid more attention to work, money and enjoyment of their rewards. In this time, many didn't discuss or analyze politics - instead choosing a prepackaged opinion from the media. Two major post war forces emerged. One was the labor unions, where one had to vote Democrat or have their legs broken. The other was the hegemony of leftist yellow journalism and broadcast.

In that climate, one was unable to raise a voice in opposition - one would be ridiculed and slandered, or merely killed in silence. In retrospect, back then Rathergate would have worked, resulting in the theft of an election. Even if the fraud were uncovered, the speed would have been lacking - the truth would have emerged some months later, perhaps finding an audience in a back alley, in the form of xeroxed leaflets. At best.

This is a sociological rift. The lying, communist cultural clergy have lost their place under the sun. Needless to say this correlates with the demise of the left. Americans aren't taking guff anymore - they prefer to find out for themselves. And they are interested in politics again. This bodes well for the future.



onthebottom said:
Great article from the Economist:

[...]


Mr Rather's retirement epitomises two broader shifts of power. First, the old media are losing power to the new. And, second, the liberal media establishment is losing power to a more diverse cacophony of new voices.
For most of the post-war era the American media were dominated by a comfortable liberal consensus. The New York Times was the undisputed king of the print news, while the network anchors lorded it over TV news. That consensus is now under siege. The attacks are partly coming from the cable networks—particularly from conservative Fox News. (Charles Krauthammer once quipped that Rupert Murdoch had spotted a niche market—half the country. Sure enough, Fox is now America's top-rated cable news network.) But old media also face a newer and more unpredictable source of competition—the blogosphere. Bloggers have discovered that all you need to set yourself up as a pundit is a website and an attitude.
All through the recent election campaign, the new media outsmarted the old media when it came to setting the news agenda.
 

red

you must be fk'n kid'g me
Nov 13, 2001
17,572
8
38
I still don't the animosity of the republicans for the democrats and vice versa- both sides are venal-scum-sucking-self-seeking-self-dealing-old-crony-lying-pieces-of filth which are called politicians

neither is any better or worse than the other and the differences in policy terms seem to be best left for archane scholars.
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
red said:
I still don't the animosity of the republicans for the democrats and vice versa- both sides are venal-scum-sucking-self-seeking-self-dealing-old-crony-lying-pieces-of filth which are called politicians

......
You forgot, most of them are lawyers, but perhaps thats redundant to your description.

OTB
 

onthebottom

Never Been Justly Banned
Jan 10, 2002
40,558
23
38
Hooterville
www.scubadiving.com
red said:
i always think of them as aka lawyers
I'll second that.

OTB
 
Ashley Madison
Toronto Escorts