I came across this “quote” while reading a blog on the NY Times about Colbert’s standing in the national Presidential poll results. This is a comment left by a reader:
“Anything to avoid serious, adversarial journalism, which is so twentieth century.”
— Posted by Mason
NO doubt!
I had just been thinking that very same thing while perusing online articles. I was critiquing them for 1) content 2) objectivity and 3) vernacular. One particular blogspot article that bothered me was discussing a case where a prostitute was raped, by three men. The judge’s verdict was that “it was a theft of services” not a “rape.” Truly an outrage, yes. Also perplexing was the language that this blogger used when discussing the case. Here is an excerpt:
“Seriously. The implication of the decision is that prostitutes are offered less protection under the law than other women. We’re relieved to see that the bar association is on the case.”
Seriously? Like, fer sure, I am soooo glad that we can take this seriously now. The bar association is ALL over that case. And who is the “we,” she speaks of in “we are relieved?”
There is todays rant-the media is a never ending source of irritation for me. I just want my friends, family, and future children to know how to dissect this shoddy, corporate sponsored, bias news oligarchy, or olicorpocracy, if you will. When something like 6 companies own ALL our media outlets, we will NOT get articulate, provoking, investigative journalism. Who needs a nation, of like, totally thinking people, when everything can just be a JOKE. DUDE, I might be bad with my commas, but I try to be objective and concise-and I’m not paid for any of the stuff I write.
When concentration of media ownership occurs, the public suffers in numerous ways. The obvious being less diversity of opinion and voice, but also caliber of voice that is presented.
Peace OUT! (out of the Closet like Dumbeldore)
You’re actually not that bad with your commas.