It’s no secret to longtime readers of this website that Stephen King’s a left-wing imbecile, but Instapunk neatly deconstructs him and the moralistic hand-flapping on waterboarding (with attendant discussion about torture) here:
Here are some of the random comments that ran through my mind as I read [King's interview in Time magazine], in no particular order:
The first substantive issue he can think of is waterboarding?
“[H]e said to me, “If we didn’t cover cultural things, we wouldn’t be covering you and The Mist, and promoting the movie.” And I’m like, “Britney Spears and Lindsay Lohan aren’t cultural.” Huh? This guy has sold more books than any other living writer and he says, “I’m like…”?
There’s more, so read it all. Thanks to Instapundit for the pointer, though as Instapunk is a regular read, I’m sure I’d've gotten to it eventually.
It seems that King’s point was the classic, “the media is focused on all the wrong things.” Specifically, he believes that the most powerful media organizations — CNN, TIME and the like — have a responsibility to focus their energies on more important issues. Daily updates on the “man who killed his wife” and “pop star is trouble again” are not worthy of the intense media focus from these powerful news organizations.
Instead of reporting on the “man who killed his wife” story, focus on the causes of domestic violence, and solutions to violence against women. Instead of “pop star in trouble again,” focus on the causes of drug and alcohol abuse and solutions for treatment of addiction. If the media has any responsibility to the public, they would stop filling their headlines with crap.
The comment about waterboarding Jenna Bush was done to grab attention and was obviously stupid.
I’m like, “solutions for treatment of addiction” when I should’ve been like, “solutions for addiction such as treatment programs,” and stuff.
Right on. Whatever.
Then why have an interview with King at all? After all, there’re more important stories not being covered.
Journalism isn’t a calling or a responsibility or a sacred duty. No more than any other business like selling screwdrivers, writing novels, or performing in pornography. Newspapers, magazines, news shows: they all have one necessity: to keep selling papers and maintain their ratings. So of course they’re going to appeal to the lowest common denominator: Britney Spears and Stephen King interviews. They’re what keep readers and viewers coming back. It’s not the media’s fault. They’re giving the people what they want.
And what’s wrong with that? As long as there is injustice in the world we can’t show any fluff? As long as warlords reign in the Sudan, we aren’t supposed to be (dubiously) treated to crotch shots of a pantiless Lindsay Lohan leaving a limousine? Nobody’s allowed dessert until they’ve had their vegetables?
I know what you’re saying and to a small extent I agree with it. But how much coverage of Paris Hilton’s weeping visage as she’s carted away to the pokey is too much? One person’s overcoverage is another person’s lack of interest. Journalistic responsibility is a smokescreen put up by an industry that has shadowed itself in lies and half-truths for CENTURIES. We’ve seen right here on this very site how slanted media coverage is. Bottom line: if there’s a story being covered by you, Josh, and some dickhead from Associated Press, I’d trust your reporting over the AP ‘head’s every time. You’ve demonstrated an interest in learning the truth of a story, whether there’s any meat to it or not. The AP ‘head is only interested in selling papers (ideological bias is an issue for another post).
This is why I believe that Big Media needs to be held accountable for the news they present.
Contemporary journalism works like this:
– Big media companies send their journalists into the field and collect information.
– Big media companies present a “version” of that information that is biased (a) by the journalist and (b) by the media organization.
– Blogs (like The Waterglass) read in-depth the stories provided by the big media companies, demand clarifications and point out the bias.
Somehow, through this process, we get in our heads a version of reality.
Because blogs lack the resources to collect information (case in point: the budget for The Waterglass’ Investigative Reporting Unit is woefully underfunded and understaffed), blogs rely on the big media.
For this process to produce something that is akin to truth, we (all of us, including the bloggers) need Big Media to be ethical and responsible media providers.
So, how much crap is too much crap? With every coverage of Paris Hilton’s weeping visage as she’s carted away to the pokey presented by Big Media, Big Media loses an ounce of their already dreadfully depleted store of ethics and responsibility.
Less heiress crying and more substantive issues. We can’t take much more from the American Butthash Media.
What happens when we’ve had enough from the American Butthash Media? What’s the alternative?
It depends.
On what?