"Rather Irrelevant." Post Boomer Anne Applebaum's view (WA PO)

[KoKo]

http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40119-2004Sep21.html

Rather Irrelevant

By Anne Applebaum
Wednesday, September 22, 2004; Page A31

Try as I may, I am unable to conjure up a single shred of nostalgia for the once-fabled network evening news programs. Walter Cronkite is a name to me, not a symbol of reassurance or stability. Edward R. Murrow is a historical figure. As for the hallowed idea of "the six o'clock news," it means nothing: In my adult life, I've never had time to watch the daily news at 6 or 6:30, at least not with any regularity. When I watch television at all, I switch without any particular loyalty from CNN to Fox to C-SPAN, depending on who is doing the talking, and I feel reasonably cynical about all of them.

I hasten to add that I am not writing this because I believe my viewing habits are interesting -- quite the contrary -- but because I suspect that they are typical, and growing more so all of the time. There is little to be said about the amorphous post-baby boomers -- anyone born after about 1960 or so -- but it's pretty clear that as a group we have no emotional attachment to ABC, NBC and CBS

SNIP...

I'm sure we'll see this episode as the final collapse of network television's dominance over the news, and the final triumph of something else, something that is in some ways better, in some ways worse. On the one hand, the media are reverting to a more combative, pre-television norm, a time when partisanship was normal and you picked up your newspaper in the morning with a clear idea of the writers' opinions -- which did at least allow you to compensate for them. On the other hand, in this more competitive, post-television age, partisans expend a great deal of energy fact-checking others, and have more outlets on the Internet, on the radio, in the press and on TV for their findings. You don't like Rather? Click on www.ratherbiased.com. You don't like Fox? Read Al Franken.

Much has been made in the past few years of the networks' "liberal bias." More dangerous, it seems to me, was the fact that the networks held a virtual monopoly over the most powerful form of communication. By its nature, television news has had far greater influence on politics, particularly national politics, than any newspaper or magazine could dream of. For that reason alone, more viewers watching a wider range of channels has to be better for the political health of the country.
http://www.washingtonpost.com/wp-dyn/articles/A40119-2004Sep21.html

She will be on C-Span's Washington Journal Tomorrow Morning....I got this from C-Span's Website.

[DemBones DemBones]

1. Her Opinion is "Rather Irrelevant," if you ask me.

:evilgrin:

[dogtag]

2. What a fucking twit!!!! Unreal

[KoKo]

3. I could only post four paragraphs....you should see the rest of it! Some

DU'ers don't have subscriptions but if you read it all isn't she the worst twit?

I'm glad it was up on C-Spans Website. I'll make sure I don't watch her on Wash. Journal tomorrow on Brian's RW Friday show.