The Media Mind

I’m not a person who nurses a lot of peeves.

I’m pretty much live and let live; I have my foibles, you can have your peccadillos. 

But if there’s a trait among journalists that annoys the piddle out of me, it’s their tendency to imbue journalism with the attributes of a holy calling, and its institutions with a significance that was absurd even back when “journalism” ostensibly meant something. 

But there’s never been anything quite like this.

Ruth Marcus writes in RCP, with emphasis added:

Don Graham’s decision to sell The Washington Post was his reverse Sophie’s Choice moment.

She had to decide which cherished child to save and which to send to the gas chamber. Don and the Graham family weren’t forced to make an anguishing choice but did so anyway. They relinquished the newspaper they love in order to protect it.

If the comparison sounds hyperbolic, you don’t know the Grahams.

And Ruth Marcus is as tone-deaf as Ryan Winkler. 

If it were any other business – including yours – it’d be just the daily thrum of business happening to theWaPo. 

Do newspapers have any greater significance to society, especially the parts of society that don’t work for the newspapers?

If that was ever the case, it was long before the Big Media whored itself out to the Big Left.  To the extent that newspapers ever played a role in civil society, it was when they still saw themselves as a check and balance on government.  Rather than just conservative government. 

Good riddance.  Hope Bezos shuts it down.

9 thoughts on “The Media Mind

  1. These people really are convinced that they embody a Ruling Class. ‘Trade’ is done by crass peddlers and corrupt money changers that the Ruling Class looks down upon from their salons.

  2. If you were hoping for a change in direction under Bezos’ control; dont. He’s as lefty as they get.

  3. Sadly, the “holy calling” of journalism views the constitution much the way that the self-righteous bicyclists of Critical Mass view traffic laws. Both expect all the protections and rights that these documents provide, but don’t really feel obligated to abide by them themselves.

    Right now, the Pioneer Press will be welcome in our home only as long as it includes the daily crossword puzzle.

  4. The “media”? You mean those papers and networks that are owned by some of the largest corporations in the world? That media?

  5. Two groundless beliefs expressed in two comments. Is this a record?
    The NY Times — a media megacorporation — attacked the majority decision in Citizens United. Citizens United did not find that ‘corporations are people’.
    You are self-refuting at this point, Emery.

  6. I don’t think that is a record for Emery. He usually expresses his groundless beliefs in a way that is pretty dense.

  7. In Emery’s 6:26 he implies that media can’t be liberal because they are controlled by corporations “The “media”? You mean those papers and networks that are owned by some of the largest corporations in the world? That media?”
    In his 7:13 Emery repeats the canard that Citizens United found that “Corporations are people too…..”
    This is a complete disconnect from reality. McCain-Feingold exempted media corporations from its speech-strangling requirements. Citizens United had no effect on the giant corporations that own much of the mass media.
    Citizens United went down because the government claimed that, if it liked, McCain-Feingold allowed them to ban the publication of books as well as TV ads. The government also claimed that the law was constitutional even if it did not exempt media outlets.

Leave a Reply

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.