Warning: include(/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php) [function.include]: failed to open stream: Permission denied in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002062.php on line 106

Warning: include() [function.include]: Failed opening '/home/annezook/public_html/sidebar.php' for inclusion (include_path='.:/usr/lib/php:/usr/local/lib/php') in /home/annezook/public_html/archives/002062.php on line 106
June 13, 2005

So, with all of that happening in the world, what's the USofA mainstream media covering? I start skimming the (television-related) sites, and I'm greeted with pictures of the latest White Girl Tragedy from CBS and ABC.

And MSNBC leads with a story about the number of USofA troops killed in Iraq in the last year, but the WGT grabs the space at the top-right of the page.


But...wonder of wonders! CNN actually leads with news. The "Mississippi Burning" trial.

Actual news!

Okay, no one's talking about the Downing Street Memo, but I assume that's because these four sites are associated with broadcast news. Until someone stands up and shouts, "I am not a crook!" there's not much drama there for the visual media.

So what's the actually press doing?

WaPo's top-right corner is about school vouchers, specifically religious schools. (Don't be misled by my Monday-morning rudeness. The story is largely positive, which does nothing to alter my opposition to vouchers.) Next to it, the story about immigration law being used a an "anti-terrorism tool" (sarcastic quote marks mine). (Related story.)

The NYTimes gives us the head of Morgan-Stanley's resignation. (It's closely followed by the Supreme Court punching Texas courts in the nose for bigotry in jury selection, which warms my heart.)

The LATimes is doing a story on boys driven out of a polygamous sect, possible to reduce the competition for the remaining female population. (This is Warren Jeffs and that breakaway Mormon group that hits the news occasionally.) Next to that, a story on worker's compensation insurance rates for contractors working in Iraq.

Criminy...is that all of the "national" press we actually have? I check a lot of "traditional" news sites during a day, but I'm realizing that most of those are local sites that I check for "perspectives" on national or international events.

When you think of the MSM, who do you think of? Do you think primarily of the television news? When you think of the press, which publications do you mean? Do you think of the internet as "media"? (Is it a tabloid and what does that mean to the press when they label something a "tab"? Is it just about readability?)

Posted by AnneZook at 03:09 PM


Randi Rhodes spent about 15-20 minutes this afternoon reading all the headlines from Google News that were "cancelled" (her term) due to the Jackson verdict...

By the way, Anne, you still have only a partial RSS feed, and about 90% of the time I try to click on your blog to read the rest of your posts I get that "Naughty, naughty!" error message. I'm about to go through your last 20 posts that I haven't been able to read all day... any chance of getting this glitch fixed?

Posted by: Elayne Riggs at June 13, 2005 04:31 PM

You must have done this survey before the verdict came down.

There's a reason it's called "mainstream" media, I suppose...

Posted by: Jonathan Dresner at June 13, 2005 09:13 PM

Jonathan, yes, I did the survey before all of that happened.

Elayne, I can't fix the problem because I can't duplicate it. When I click on my blog from bloglines, it loads just fine. When I click on a single post, it also loads with no problems. I don't know why you're having problems. Is there something special about the setup you're using?

Posted by: Anne at June 13, 2005 09:29 PM

Michael Kinsley was in the 12 June Sunday WashPo about the Downing Street memo - basically dismissing it (No Smoking Gun).

I'm sure he's being flogged in liberal circles, but could it be an indication that there's just no "there there?"

Posted by: Col Steve at June 14, 2005 01:07 AM

It's possible he's being 'flogged', Col Steve, I haven't read that far in my daily list yet this morning.

It's also possible there's no "there there." I'm quite aware of that. We've got quite a lot of smoke by now...whether or not there's a gun at the center of it remains to be seen.

I will continue to ask that the DSM be addressed openly, honestly, and thoroughly. At the very least it raises troubling questions about the Bush Administration's tactics and reveals a flat determination to go to war that is completely at odds with his public comments to the USofA public.

Considering some of this Administration's other positions (the president doesn't need Congress's permission to go to war, torture is okay if it's us doing it, global warming is some kind of left-wingnut invention, etc.), I think it's time and past time that we started a public evaluation of their actions versus their rhetoric.

I'm sick of reading speeches carefully crafted to convey an impression that the speaker is saying the opposite of what he's saying.

I'm sick of "presidential privilege" or whatever they call that thing they use to refuse to tell us who they're talking to and what they're saying on matters that concern the USofA public. Nothing, beyond measures of actual national security, should be secret. Cheney's Energy Commission is just an example of the kind of deliberations about national policy that no honest government should want to keep from the public.

I'm sick of back room deals and payoffs and the entire, dirty, "old white boy network."

This isn't even entirely about the Bush Administration. I want more honesty, and more openness in our Federal government overall.

Posted by: Anne at June 14, 2005 09:46 AM