Time to retire "MSM"

I agree. There are times when I have used the term, so I am guilty of making this mistake.


Daily Kos: Time to retire "MSM"

http://www.dailykos.com/storyonly/2006/1/5/122752/6968

most of them ARE corporations.

Maybe "Conglomerate Media" since many of these corporations are actually a huge mix.

I had been using CMC - corporate media clique cuz they all tend to huddle around each other & decide what the message should be.

will try to remember and propogate this MEME OF TRUTH

:silly:

He's comparing the circulation of newspapers to hits and email lists, claiming he'd be the fifth largest newspaper. He's not including the hits and email lists of the newspaper or tv news websites, he's not subtracting the multiple hits and emails of his own blog (i'm sure many people who get his email also hit his blog).

Weak logic. And MSM doesn't refer to the size of the MSM anyway, it refers to the way these outlets are perceived in terms of objectivity, logic, and ability to cover stories, which elevates the level of trust people give them. If he's claiming he has the same number of reporters, and same amount of resources to cover stories in Iraq, Africa or Russia as the MSM, then put him in the mix, too. Otherwise, he's a blogger who relies on the MSM largely for his own stories and sources, with a few sources of his own.

For the record, I'm not arguing that the MSM is actually more objective or logical, or that they actually cover their own stories (they often rely on a couple of wire services for their stories), only that they are perceived that way. And some of the perception is justified, especially when you get away from politics. Even in politics, a newspaper like the NYT or WP has several editors and a board to decide what stories make the grade, what slant is justifiable or not, etc. With most blogs, you get one person's opinion. That opinion may be more accurate than a larger paper's, or it may be way out in lala land, but the fact that only one person really decides it makes that blog less reliable in most people's minds than a larger press source.

And if you think you don't believe that Kos is less reliable than CNN, ask yourself how often you read a story on a blog and then turn to a larger source like CNN, or else hit several other blogs for confirmation. Probably not every time--DUers are largely able to judge the quality of a source. But I remember when TOm Flocco first began reporting his nonsense that Fitzgerald had indictments against the president, most DUers argued that if he were right, the MSM would have picked it up.

Again, I'm as against the corporate, Republican bias--even activism--of the MSM (read my sig), but Kos is reaching here, and it makes me question his reasoning on other issues when he does. There is a mainstream media, which the mainstream of Americans are going to accept as legitimate over most bloggers. Trying to change that by changing the terminology isn't very realistic. It could even be dangerous. The more we listen to only those who agree with us, the more likely we are to become as brainwashed as the Fundies, because we will begin to refuse to accept or even hear anything not said by someone who passes the proper litmus tests first.

He's the guy that proclaimed the Transit Workers strike (the largest strike in a decade) as a "regional issue".

I guess he thinks everyone that reads his site, has a college degree, and a nice cushy job somewhere that there is no need to strike.

"Mainstream" connotes more than size or ratings, or subscription numbers. It also deals with the attitudes that television and other mass media cultivate. Daily Kos does not cultivate "mainstream" views. People who consume "mainstream media" are likely to give "television answers" to questions about political attitudes (e.g. middle-of-the-roadish bullshit that usually legitimizes the status quo). I would think that Kos readers would give more informed, enlightened answers than that. He should be proud of not being "mainstream."

There's a distinction there that means something, and he should be proud of the distinction.

I mean, if we went by numbers, Limbaugh would be high (no pun intended--okay, yeah there was) up on the MSM list, rather than just another wacko with a big, braindead audience.

peace

is the way I always spell it.

I at this point still don't have a problem with the term MSM. When I objectively look at it I still consider most of the MSM sources to be in fact the main source of information for most people, and until that changes I think the term MSM is fine, regardless of how far skewed from reality the reporting is.

I back up the notion that it is still MSM by how frustrated we are with them. Time after time DU'ers (myself included) will vent about how there is frustration that everyday americans (average joe's) have no idea of the reality behind most of these stories because the MSM (CCM) doesn't report the facts. We vent about how they are irresponsible and are doing such a disservice from their propaganda etc..

If the MSM truly wasn't MSM any longer, and the blogs were now the MSM, then wouldn't everybody be far more informed? Wouldn't we be completely wrong then to bitch at the MSM if what they were reporting had little influence on the majority of americans anymore due to those people now mainly getting there info from elsewhere?

I think it is clear that is not yet the case, and that is why I still consider it to be MSM. I am however very optimistic at the growth of blogs and their readership, and am confident that in due time the roles will in fact be switched.

I know newpapers sales are way down (maybe due to the Internet) but I think people are just not buying their shit anymore. To get real news TURN TO C-SPAN!! I learned this lesson way too late, but that's where I turn now, and I wish more would do the same.