25 February 2006

Overly Harsh?

You may think that my last post is somehow too harsh, that I am being too hard on the largely supine US media and our way-too-loyal opposition. So here at Index on Censorship you can find a nice essay by Chandra Sekar exploring the sorts of quesitons that the press and oppostion have left not just unaswered, but unasked.


Blogger JenniferM said...

I am curious about analysis or discussions of the mainstream media and/or politicians using photographic images as drivers for "sales"? It seems to me to expect the mainstream media to wield photographic images as a means to affect political change and pressure the Bush administration presumes that their primary business objective is one revolving around social responsiilty vs. fiscal responsibilty to their investors. Perhaps this is an oversimplification of the complex relationship between ethical journalism and the reporting of "truth" as a very marketable consumable. But, I can't help but consider that Americans are avid consumers of devestation and do not seem to pressure the mainstream media to do more than provide the product. Maybe this is too cynical?

06 March, 2006 12:02  
Blogger Jim Johnson said...

Thanks for replying. You make an interesting point. I tend to be overly cynical myself and wonder why I am continually amazed by the craven way the mainstream media behave with respect to politicans and business. This is complicated and I hardly am an expert by any means. (There is a good book by Tim Cook "Governing with the News: The News Media as a Political Insitituion" that examines many of the internal dynamics of the media-political-busness nexus.) But the media incessantly claim to be independent. And they do - sometimes, often after substantial delay - actually act as though they are. I know, not terribly incisive, but true enough, I think.

06 March, 2006 22:57  

Post a Comment

<< Home