Wednesday, September 06, 2006

HEIR BRUSHED

WE KNOW LITTLE THAT THE MEDIA DOESN’T TELL US. THAT’S WHY THE PEOPLE WHO CONTROL THE PUBLIC AIRWAVES HAVE A MAJOR RESPONSIBILITY TO ACCURATELY COVER THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENTS OF THE DAY.

CBS NEWS HAS SPENT MILLIONS PROMOTING THE NEW HEIR TO THEIR THRONE….THE ANCHOR CHAIR.
IT WAS AS IF THE PERSON READING THE NEWS WAS THE NEWS ITSELF.
THE PROMOTIONAL PICTURES THEY RELEASED WERE AIR BRUSHED TO SHAVE OFF SOME TWENTY POUNDS. THE CALCULATION WAS TO ATTRACT AN AUDIENCE BY WRAPPING THE NEWS IN SOME MATURE SEX APPEAL. GRAVITAS WTHOUT THE GRAVY.

THE DECEPTION WOULD BE EXCUSED IF THIS WAS HOLLYWOOD. THIS IS A BAD START FOR A NEWS AGENCY THAT MIGHT WANT TO BE TAKEN SERIOUSLY. IT’S A BRUTAL INSULT TO THE PUBLIC.

13 comments:

hans blixen said...

Sex appeal...you have to watch the news on French TV to get sex appeal...The only good part of the Abu Ghraib crisis was listening to the anchor pronounce it...I couldn't care less about CBS, but "gravitas without the gravy" surely is the best line ever in bloggerland

quicksand said...

AS I RECENTLY STATED WHILE DEFENDING MY FLIMSY HONOR..........I HAVEN'T WATCHED THE NETWORKS IN OVER TWENTY YEARS. I'D GLADLY BUY MY NEXT TV WITHOUT NETWORK CAPACITY.
HOWEVER, SOME DO WATCH IT. IT STILL HAS A FADING AURA OF RESPECTABILITY. IT'S LESS ABOUT NEWS THAN IT IS ABOUT MARKETING AND PRODUCT.
IT'S BOTTOM FISHING FOR THE BOTTOM LINE.

Ben's friend said...

Yet the photojournalist who "enhanced" the explosion photos in Bahgdad was fired. What is the difference between making and explosion look bigger or making an explosive hip look smaller?

quicksand said...

BEN-FREN

RIGHT. BOTH CASES OF DECEIT. ONE MORE IMPORTANT THAN THE OTHER...BUT DECEPTION ALL THE SAME.

nora said...

the thing that really gets me is all this emotion...when did it become necessary to enhance the day's events by extreme facial gestures, just so, in case we were too stupid to figure it out, we would know, serious...this requires our concern, laughing...a light-hearted tidbid to savor. Like they have some kind of emotional switch they can flick on and off to suit the story line.
I liked the days when you had to look fairly closely at Roger Grimsby to see the smirk appearing at the corner of his mouth...

ben's friend said...

to Nora
Agreed. Ultimately it is insulting to the viewer, suggesting that we can't figure it out for ourselves; we need visual clues to accompany the voice. Very much like the laugh tracks on the sit coms to tell us when it is O.K. to laugh.

quicksand said...

GASP!
I WATCHED A FEW MINUTES. FORGIVE ME!
I FIGURED IF I WRITE ABOUT IT...

THE ANCHOR INTERVIEWED THE UNITER.

WHILE MONICA GAVE HER ORAL GIFT TO THRILL-BILL IN PRIVATE,
PERKY GAVE HERS TO THE DECIDER ON NATIONAL TV.

Sweetime said...

I am a media junkie. I watched the premiere broadcast of Cutie Couric just to see what would be presented. I had no expectations of quality journalism but did want to see just how ridiculous the fourth estate had become. I feel no monkey on my back to see another episode. Brian William's interview with Bush in New Orleans was one of the best moments in front of the tube I have had in a while. What a reading frenzy GW has been on. Camus and 3 Shakespeares! How does he do it?

quicksand said...

SWEETIME
THE NEWS BUSINESS HAS GOTTA' BE TOUGH.SELECTING, FOCUSING, ALLOTING TIME... ALWAYS PACING ALONG A FINE LINE.

THE PROBLEM IS THE MOUNTING DEPARTURE AWAY FROM THAT HISTORIC PRACTICE.
WHEN THE MOST NEWS THAT MOST PEOPLE ENCOUNTER IS POPULARITY, ENTERTAINMENT, AND RATINGS GENERATED, WE ARE ALL LESS WELL OFF.

THE THREE SHAKESPEARES IS LIKE QUAYLE'S 'POTATOE'.
OF NO CONSEQUENCE OTHER THAN A REVEALING PEEK INTO THE MAN BEHIND THE PACKAGING.
I BELIEVE NO ONE IN THE HISTORY OF HARVARD OR YALE HAS EVER SAID, "I READ THREE SHAKESPEARES."
IT TELLS ME THAT MR. BUSH MAY HAVE SAT IN CLASS, BUT HE NEVER 'WENT' TO HARVARD.
THOSE PAINED BY AFFIRMITIVE ACTION SHOULD ALSO CONSIDER THE INJUSTICE OF LEGACY ACTION.
LIKE THE ACCIDENTAL TOURIST....
WE ARE LIVING WITH THE ACCIDENTAL PRESIDENT.

Anonymous said...

Many good things here. I agree with Quicksand regarding the state of network news. The problem with Bush and his making gaffs is that you are assuming that because of the gaffs there is nothing intellectual below the surface. I think you are mistaken. I would prefer Bush and his gaffs to Clinton being so articulate and so confident and yet if he were to tell me that it was sunny out, I would have to go check. Don't mistake inarticulateness with stupidity, as you should not mistake a charismatic and glib personality with genius or honesty. As far a Cutie Katie goes....this is apparently what some people want. I prefer newscasters who (like in the old days) merely reported the news. I didn't mind the almost grouchy look of a Walter Cronkite, because he did his job.....he reported the news. There are enough spin doctors out there to choose an interpretation later.

Sweetime said...

ANONYMOUS...Au Contrare.
The gaffs, and they are considerable, indicate the inability if GW to think clearly and then articulate those thoughts. As the leader of the free world he should exemplify intelligent rhetoric and process. Unlike Clinton, it is often apparent that GW seldom knows more than the most superficial aspects of an issue. The lack of mastery ultimately results in glib ad-lib comments that his supporters dismiss as just gaffs. He is not a brilliant man afflicted by spoonerisms. He is what he appears to be, a poor master of the prerequisite knowledge necessary to hold the office of President.
Media manipulators of the right like Ann Coulter are the only ones that still resort to the chant of "Clinton's fault". Credible arguments from the right are taking a good hard look at Bush & Company's record with criticism.
Except for Hannity and Limbaugh, it is not valid anymore to present the foibles of the Clinton years as an excuse for the mess that we find ourselves in today. For them however, anything else would alienate their fans and the associated advertising dollars that they garner. My hope is that we the people are collectively smart enough to elect a worthy President next time and a bright Congress this time to fix the damage created by this regime of the diabolical, self-serving and incompetent.
Perhaps there are candidates, that we might even agree on, that have that curative potential.

That's an issue that I think the media and those politically interested folks should be discussing instead of continuing this right wing media supported polarization of our society based on fear and misinformation that is clearly leading us further from the democracy we all cherish.

Hillary for President!
(Just kidding)

Violet said...

Anonymous:
How about not mistaking stupidity for stupidity?

bens' friend said...

To sweetime
Rev. Al Sharpton for President!
(Just kidding..........or maybe not)