Media-ocrity

Hindrocket writes:

Why is it that the mainstream media can justify their relentless negativity and their single-minded focus on American casualties? After all, journalists are well aware that terrorists are being killed too, and that much progress is being made on various fronts.

But these things do not deter the MSM, for a very simple reason: with very few exceptions, they do not respect the mission in Iraq. They take it as an article of faith that the war was a mistake;. . .

The question is why? Why can't they look at this as a strategic issue in dealing with terrorism?

I'd say it's because they see their mission as "holding those in power accountable," which has come to mean that whatever the administration says or does, media are supposed to oppose it. That is obviously a distortion of the original idea, that of being skeptical, into a reflexive opposition and negative view of whatever the government says or does. What good is a factchecker who always finds lies?

We rely on news media to give us unbiased information, but they have focused so heavily on "holding government accountable," that they no longer seem to care about objectivity. It's the old saying, "If you're a hammer, everything looks like a nail." For a time, this worked because they had no competition except people with the same bias, but that ceased with the advent of Rush Limbaugh, Fox News and now bloggers. When you're used to speaking to a camera or computer terminal, you can imagine whatever audience you like, but when you're in front of a live audience like the blogosphere, it must be shocking to find them throwing rotten tomatoes. That's why blogs are so significant. They change the news from a monologue to live theater.