Dan Rather, Michael Moore, Christiana Amanpour

[Occhidiangela]

About 20 years ago, Sean Connery played a "superstar" reporter in a movie called "Wrong is Right." In the film, the star reporter is used by a few governmental types.

The superstar reporter syndrome has only gotten worse since. Mr Rather appears to have passed his "sell by date." If we presume that Mr Moore's craft is "documentary film" then he has fallen into the same trap. So too Christiana Amanpour, of whom it has been said "She gives good war."

All three of these folks miss a very important bit of news reporting's nature: it's not about them, it's about the story, it is about the events upon which they report. Likewise Barbara Walters, Ed Bradley et al.

What was the name of the song that Living Colour made into such a hit?

Cult of Personality

Yeah.

The Twenty First Century has opened its doors as "The Century Of The Drama Queen and the Attention Whore."

Oh joy.

Occhi

[ShadowHM]

The Twenty First Century has opened its doors as "The Century Of The Drama Queen and the Attention Whore."

There have always been Drama Queens and Attention Whores.

What has changed is the number of people they can access and the credibility they seem to have garnered. Or is it that the majority of people are credulous and accessing more of them gives the Drama Queens and Attention Whores some form of cachet?

[eppie]

there's commercial television for you...

if news was fun people would read more newspapers, if you need to make money on news (like CNN) you invent your own news and you hire some "personalities"

Lucky we have the internet.

[Occhidiangela]

It may be that my distaste derives from how I was raised.

We seem to be dealing with a Social corralary of Sturgeon's Law, wherein the absence of a filtration mechanism -- which the need to be able to write, and to read and comprehend, provided that the video/audio medium does not -- creates a second iteration of the Law resulting in 99 % of everything, versus the standard 90%, is rubbish. :blink:

OK, so let's live for that 1%.

Occhi

[--Pete]

Hi,

. . . Sean Connery played a "superstar" reporter . . .

Text reporters are seen as nothing more than a byline. Perhaps by doing something extremely outstanding ("Doctor Livingston I presume") they can occasionally be noticed. But in text reporting it is all about the news and nothing about the chronicler.

The radio changed that some, so that a little of the personality of the reporter came through. While still mostly about the news, the 'news people' started to become more important -- especially those that served up the news with a fair bit of opinion.

And now, the botoxed beauties and coiffure clotheshorse through which any importance or relevance is filtered out of the news have become *the* show. An extremely happy group due to their ignorance, they can seldom pronounce, and rarely understand, anything more complex than a train wreck (and in some cases not even that). And, although their putative job is to elevate the nations collective intelligence and knowledge, they
"Care ... not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That {they're} in."

Possibly the biggest mistake of our times, when so many big mistakes have been made, was in not interpreting the first amendment literally. It mentions 'the press', as in the printing press, the written word. It says nothing of radio and TV ;) Time to shut down those detractors to the nation's mental health and sanity :)

--Pete

[Doc]

Hi,

. . . Sean Connery played a "superstar" reporter . . .

Text reporters are seen as nothing more than a byline.  Perhaps by doing something extremely outstanding ("Doctor Livingston I presume") they can occasionally be noticed.  But in text reporting it is all about the news and nothing about the chronicler.

The radio changed that some, so that a little of the personality of the reporter came through.  While still mostly about the news, the 'news people' started to become more important -- especially those that served up the news with a fair bit of opinion.

And now, the botoxed beauties and coiffure clotheshorse through which any importance or relevance is filtered out of the news have become *the* show.  An extremely happy group due to their ignorance, they can seldom pronounce, and rarely understand, anything more complex than a train wreck (and in some cases not even that).  And, although their putative job is to elevate the nations collective intelligence and knowledge, they
"Care ... not to come up any higher
But rather get you down in the hole
That {they're} in."

Possibly the biggest mistake of our times, when so many big mistakes have been made, was in not interpreting the first amendment literally.  It mentions 'the press', as in the printing press, the written word.  It says nothing of radio and TV ;)  Time to shut down those detractors to the nation's mental health and sanity :)

--Pete

Pete, if you don't mind me saying, that pretty much sums up how I feel.

I like text. And radio. Not a fan of TV.

As for the botoxed beauties and the well groomed (ugh) metrosexual talking heads on tv, I feel like, at times, I am watching a Gap commercial and not the news.

Text is still with out a doubt, the best medium. For news, books, any source of information. It does not need to be booted, does not need electricity, does not need Windows, Linux, or Mac compatability, only a basic understanding of the language it is written in. There is something comforting in the flow of a well written piece. Something about the rustle of paper, mayhap the smell of ink. News on TV is to, well, unsettling. Bright flashy graphic fade ins and outs, loud nerve wracking theme music and dramatic introduction pieces, and some of those people talking talk like they are talking through their nose. Bloody annoying. And there is the little news ticker at the bottom, background information, occasional sidebars, topbars, and live film footage as well as a talking head on screen all at once.

Yuck.

[kandrathe]

And now, the botoxed beauties and coiffure clotheshorse through which any importance or relevance is filtered out of the news have become *the* show.

Does anything personify that better than "Fox & Friends" which I flip quickly by in the morning? I'm sure in order to qualify for a position on that show you must actually fail a basic aptitude test.

I've stopped trying to get "news" from the networks. Its just not there.

I'm also tired of the packaged, "All the news you need to know", mentality of news directors who spoon feed us the "event du jour" heedless of other more important things happening on the planet. I don't need a reporter on the ground, or a series of artistic bumper slides and an original scored theme for every news event. I would just like a few objective sentences on the important things that are happening around the globe. But, that would be boring, lacking flash and sizzle. It would be bad for ratings to spend the news budget on actually finding and delivering the news.

[Sir_Die_alot]

I'm also tired of the packaged, "All the news you need to know", mentality of news directors who spoon feed us the "event du jour" heedless of other more important things happening on the planet.

This is the TV new's biggest failing. I can't think of how many times I flip to one station and it's Laci Peterson murder trial, flip to another, it's Kobe Bryant. Give me Iraq, give me Afghanistan, a presidential speech, damn even the weather, BUT GIVE ME SOME REAL NEWS! That's usually the point I decide I've had too much TV. (which is usually after 10 minutes or so :P )

[Zarathustra]

And that is why I prefer to check the new on various sources online.

[Yrrek]

I agree that the TV news is far from what it should be. So I like to turn to this wonderful news site for my news.

Another good one can be found here. :P

[CelticHound]

Were people really better informed two hundred years ago? Perhaps it's all the same except that now we use visual esthetics to determine which unqualified people get to tell us what to think.

On the other hand, how can you not approve of Britney's Guide to Semiconductor Physics?

Besides, it seems to me that people believe what they want to believe, in any case.

Oh, vaguely on this topic, I have a reference question. Is there a way/place I can look up past congressional/California-legislature votes online? I have what's nearly a wager with my nextdoor neighbor (who, btw, hasn't read a book in the last quarter century) about this. He contends that: 1) from the first clean air bill onward, the conservatives have been as in favor of conservation as the liberals (meaning Reps and Dems, respectively, of course) and 2) that especially in California that the republicans have at least equaled the democrats in creating and protecting his entitlements as a handicapped person.

I'd like to find a searchable source, but if not, I'll go see if the reference librarian can help me.

-- CH

[Tal]

Oh, vaguely on this topic, I have a reference question.  Is there a way/place I can look up past congressional/California-legislature votes online?  I have what's nearly a wager with my nextdoor neighbor (who, btw, hasn't read a book in the last quarter century) about this.  He contends that: 1) from the first clean air bill onward, the conservatives have been as in favor of conservation as the liberals (meaning Reps and Dems, respectively, of course) and 2) that especially in California that the republicans have at least equaled the democrats in creating and protecting his entitlements as a handicapped person.

I'd like to find a searchable source, but if not, I'll go see if the reference librarian can help me.

-- CH

Without being able to do a model reference interview I think this answers your question in regards to voting on conservation for California congress members. This allows you to search by subject and then to see the vote.

Tal the Virtual Reference Librarian :)

[CelticHound]

Hi Tal,

Thanks for the links. The environmental study was interesting, and I admit my disagreement did not include immigration as part of environmental impact. (Though there's a tacit assumption in there that if we more tightly controlled immigration into this country, then either the potential immigrants wouldn't be making babies where they are now, or (more likely) they wouldn't have the standard of living to cause as much environmental damage, or we simply don't care what happens elsewhere.)

I'd already been to that Senate page, but as far as I can tell it's only for current bills. (And my goodness, some of the bill titles! It's not immediately obvious why 'The Gasoline Price Reduction Act of 2004' is called that, but it sounds good.) I was really wanting something more in the line of past history - like back in the day when the first Clean Air bill in congress was put to a vote.

-- CH

[Brista]

Plus ca change

People still remember to this day the name of the self-glorifying "superstar reporter" who covered the Trojan War

[Occhidiangela]

Nice one Brista. :lol:

I do not equate what a minstrel or bard did with no kidding Journalism. News reportage. Modern journalism has, or once had, tried to create for itself a set of ethical and professional standards. Newspaper reporting drew from the Enlightenment's attempt to put a bit of rigor into history, to use the scientific method, and expanded upon it. At least, that was the aim.

The "minstrel in the gallery" as source of news, or the trubadour, or the bard, or any traveller-story teller as a news source takes us back to rumor as a news source . . . which is where we seem to be today, but the news carriers don't have to walk as far.

The critical measure of news, rather than "history" is its perishability.

Occhi

[CelticHound]

Just went to the Google news page. One of the headlines at the moment is "Phil Spector On Murder 1 Charge". It's in the category of "Entertainment".

Fitting? Ironic? Relevant to this thread?

-- CH

[Brista]

I think that it's just a reflection of how most people see it, Celtichound. In their defence they could argue that "Entertainment" is a heading that covers the entertainment industry and that without the participation of a famous entertainer this would just be another marginal crime story of little general interest

I don't know if the distinction made by Occhi between ethical reporters and modern sensationalism ever really existed. Cynically one could say that "ethical" reporting is just another gimmick to attract readers. Moreover there wasn't a period of history during which all reporters subscribed to this

Even in Ancient Greece Homer's flamboyant style contrasts with Herodotus' more scrupulous one. Hence Homer is the more famous, despite the fact that the events Herodotus wrote of are just as vivid (the 300 Spartans, the glory days of classical Athens, etc)

I don't think we've ever not had sensationalist reporting - Swift's "A Modest Proposal" in 1729 had the same combination of sensationalism and impact as Michael Moore's Fahrenheit 9/11 and no doubt started similar heated arguments in the coffee shops of London to the debates sparked by Mr Moore's film on the internet

So how has journalism suddenly lost its ethics - compared to say the noble days of 10 years ago when Princess Di was hounded to death by headline-hungry paparazzi

I'm afraid I don't know the other two reporters, just Michael Moore

And sure, his work is selective, distorting and it is of course frustrating to be the passive spectator to a flawed argument being built on deliberately twisted evidence

I don't even think it's a bad thing, per se. You see the film, you walk out talking, discussing, arguing, finding your own truths. The audience knows he's partial, that's part of the point.

Arguably it's more honest than the "impartial" reporting of CNN, BBC. Remember there is no perfect science - the act of observation distorts the experiment and a whole chain of people distort our daily news

Of course if he says something I don't like then I'll probably join Occhi and the rest in hurling virtual eggs and tomatoes :lol:

[CelticHound]

I think that it's just a reflection of how most people see it, Celtichound. In their defence they could argue that "Entertainment" is a heading that covers the entertainment industry and that without the participation of a famous entertainer this would just be another marginal crime story of little general interest

Oh, I'm not blaming Google, and perhaps there is merit in that argument. But I think it says something about our society. To wit:

So how has journalism suddenly lost its ethics - compared to say the noble days of 10 years ago when Princess Di was hounded to death by headline-hungry paparazzi

There was a joke I heard right after this, which I found amusing at the time.

Headline: "A ferryboat capsized today near the mouth of the Zambezi river. All 438 passengers were drowned, but a disaster was averted when it was determined that a princess was not on board the vessel."

On the whole I agree with you. Thanks for bringing up Swift's "A Modest Proposal" - that's a cool parallel.

I think my next post in this thread will be Dan Rather and conspiracy theory.

-- CH

[Any1]

I wouldn't toss in Christiana Amanpour in the same lot as Moore and Rather.

Rather has been a reactionary and dense glory-hound for the past decade, at least.

Moore, is not really a journalist. He has an agenda, which he makes no secret of, and he produces op-ed pieces in the form of feature movies.

Amanpour is a real unbiased journalist. She is eloquent and insightful. She also comes across as modest and extremely bright. What exactly don't you like about her work?

[Occhidiangela]

I wouldn't toss in Christiana Amanpour in the same lot as Moore and Rather. 

Rather has been a reactionary and dense glory-hound for the past decade, at least. 

Moore, is not really a journalist.  He has an agenda, which he makes no secret of, and he produces op-ed pieces in the form of feature movies.

Amanpour is a real unbiased journalist.  She is eloquent and insightful.  She also comes across as modest and extremely bright.  What exactly don't you like about her work?
[right][snapback]56688[/snapback][/right]

Her work, fine. Her agenda, bollocks.

Occhi