Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : PRESIDENT GEORGE W. BUSH -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: PROLIFE who wrote (759078)	2/10/2007 10:06:46 PM
From: Stan	Respond to of 769670

That is a major tactical coup, if not strategic too. It's goes beyond my ability to understand why something like that doesn't make mainstream media. sigh. I guess it doesn't really. The problem lies with the term 'media,' for, it carries an impression of neutrality like actual media does such as radio waves, air, water, paper, ink and so on. As Edwin Newman opined so long ago, media should be called "The News Business." Like any business, you buy something based on what appeals to you: flavor, type, color or any other intrinsic factor. In the News Business, we have conservative, liberal, conspiracy-theory, libertarian, Christian, Islamic, Socialist, etc. So, everyone picks a flavor but calls it "media" nonetheless. In the days of Cronkite, the audience naively believed it was indeed media. He reinforced the delusion by affirming the journalist code to be neutral. But, that is quite impossible for humans to do, who must choose which story to cover, how much, what billing it gets, what gets edited, what gets retained, and how often it gets repeated. Take the article you just posted. As you said, it won't get 'MSM' treatment. The question is, "Why?" But everyone knows the answer deep down: It either supports your view or it doesn't. Flavor = philosophy = business model for the news agency.