Tuesday, November 29


I read some of the dumbest shit in the comments section of random blogs every day.

But here's a comment I found to be particularly insipid in a discussion of the alleged disconnect between media portrayals and soldiers' perceptions of the war:

The media also has a well known “event bias” that effects whether or not an issue becomes part of the national adgenda. A bomb going off is an event. An aid worker getting kidknapped is an event. An election is an event. They fit nicely into the headlines and the soundbites that the media, perhaps by its very nature, is forced to comform to. Reporting on slow steady progress is hard to do ona daily basis. It just doesn’t sell air time.

Um, "event bias"? "EVENT BIAS"?!? Isn't that what the news is -- coverage of events? And, yes, to a larger extent, how those events shape the world? But mostly, the events happening in the world that you might not be able to see with your own eyes?!?!?


Maybe I'm not quite envisioning the info-egalitarian brave new media world that many in the blogosphere salivate over, but I also think these people are drunk on their own pajama power if they think that they are going to root out "event bias" in the news and be left with anything other the random natterings of fool in his underwear. What kind of news coverage would not be "event biased"? Jesus, there go my teeth again. They will be nubs soon.

Read the whole chuckle-rific thread here. I picked this up via Ezra. Now I'm putting it down, slowly, and stepping away.


Post a Comment

Links to this post:

Create a Link

<< Home