Wednesday, September 12, 2007

a question...

which i'll hopefully elaborate on myself when i get home tonight:

which is more valuable, an "objective" media that actually caters to one side or the other, or more independent, franchise style reporters (bloggers) who very much proclaim their stance and fight for it tooth and nail? should we empower biased bloggers with more resources to do more investigations, hoping the the competition will turn up the truth? or should we continue to rely on supposedly objective media outlets to bring us the full and complete story?

4 comments:

Adrian said...

You gotta have objective facts. If the actual information isn't objective then you are making decisions based on your own propaganda, which is like a dog sleeping where it shits.

Pat said...

but if you have 2 competiting sides, wouldn't they need to dig up all objective facts relevant to their case?

i dont actually think its a good idea but our current media system seems pretty broken so i was just thinking about alternatives.

Pat said...

obviously in order for this to work both sides would have to get equal air time etc, so they can both present their cases. basically you have fox news on one side of the same program and.. i dunno, kieth olberman i guess, on the other, they both have their obvious slants, so they actually have to get down to the facts to make a case. a bit like that crossfire program, except would it should have been; real actual debate instead of mindless partisan hackery.

this is starting to sound like communism.. "in a perfect world where communism works, communism works great!", so nevermind i guess. but still, our current media seems to be in dire need of repair.

subadei said...

I wonder if we're entering an age where the two (personal media and professional media) are becoming more and more symbiotic in nature? Consider both Kos and Malkin? Both rely on the traditional media for their ideological "fuel" and the professional media in turn is reliant on them for reflection or analysis.