"Old Media" vs "New Media" - Discuss !!

[The Vorlon]

Much has been made of the "Old media" (CBS/NT Times, etc) versus the "New Media" (FoxNews, assorted Blogs, etc) and how the role the media played in 2004 was very different...

How important was the erosion of the Networks ability to control the news in 2004...

Would Bush have won without the Bloggers...?

How much did Ra^thergate help Bush?

Or is, to borrow Twain's phrase, is the decline of "old media" greatly exagerated...?

here is Michael Barone's take...

Please post alternative views

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20041115.shtml

[handler]

Im afraid Barone got it right.  The "Old Media" may have overplayed their hand in this election.

[stry_cat]

The "Old Media" did overplay their hand this election, but that doesn't mean they aren't a force to be reckoned with.  The "Old Media" is the only source of news that is common to almost everyone.  Their reporters are still the onces recognized and allowed to ask the questions.  People forget quickly and the antics of CBS and Rather will be forgoten before the next election.  They also won't make the mistake of putting fake documents on the web any more. 

They'll still have major influcence on what is news although there are now ways around the gatekeepers.

[GoldenSt8r]

First of all, a correction to Michael Barone's article.

''CBS, admirably, posted the documents on its websites, and within 14 hours bloggers -- led by frontpage.com, powerlineblog.com and littlegreenfootballs.com -- had demonstrated that these purported 1972 documents had been produced on Microsoft Word. ''

It was not frontpage.com.  It was freerepublic.com.

~~~~~~

How important was the erosion of the Networks ability to control the news in 2004?
What the Networks have lost is the ability to interpret the news and the ability to control the complaints.   We the people were formally independent islands of outrage, but no longer.   We would hear something we disagreed with, and if we felt strongly enough we could write or call in our complaints.  But we were never heard.  Now, we have the ability to discover almost instantly that many, many other people had a similar response, and our combined outrage has the force and energy to turn our individual complaints into a roar that must be heard.

How much did Ra^thergate help Bush?
The main way that it helped Bush is that for 12 days during a critical month in the campaign, Kerry was all but ignored.  

[J. J.]

I would have had conversations like this after church, at the MickyDee's, in a dining hall or at a friends house 20 years ago.  Now perhaps 1000 people are reading this.

That fact alone illustrates the changes in media.

[Alcon]

How threatened is old media by the new media? About as much as television is by the Internet.

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FauxNews? LOL!!!!

[J. J.]

FauxNews? LOL!!!!

As opposed to the "Communist Broadcasting System?"

[iosip]

First of all, a correction to Michael Barone's article.

''CBS, admirably, posted the documents on its websites, and within 14 hours bloggers -- led by frontpage.com, powerlineblog.com and littlegreenfootballs.com -- had demonstrated that these purported 1972 documents had been produced on Microsoft Word. ''

this is incorrect.

nobody has ever proven they were made with ms word.

[J. J.]

First of all, a correction to Michael Barone's article.

''CBS, admirably, posted the documents on its websites, and within 14 hours bloggers -- led by frontpage.com, powerlineblog.com and littlegreenfootballs.com -- had demonstrated that these purported 1972 documents had been produced on Microsoft Word. ''

this is incorrect.

nobody has ever proven they were made with ms word.

No, but there is a heck of a lot of evdence that they were not made 1972, technical and stylistic.

[ATFFL]

How threatened is old media by the new media? About as much as television is by the Internet.

So they will be suing them soon?  TV stations/producers like to sue Internet sites tht contain clips (or sometimes whole episodes) from TV shows. 

The old media is losing viewers at an alarming rate and they are going to the new media.  No longer are stories run on the big 3 accepted without question. 

[○∙◄☻¥tπ[╪AV┼cVê└]

FauxNews? LOL!!!!

As opposed to the "Communist Broadcasting System?"

I bet you didn't know that Dan Rather co-owns a ranch with Donald Rumsfeld.

If I was Rumsfeld, I'd stay away from communists.

[J. J.]

FauxNews? LOL!!!!

As opposed to the "Communist Broadcasting System?"

I bet you didn't know that Dan Rather co-owns a ranch with Donald Rumsfeld.

If I was Rumsfeld, I'd stay away from communists.

Is this like George W's lumber company?  Got wood?

[CARLHAYDEN]

Much has been made of the "Old media" (CBS/NT Times, etc) versus the "New Media" (FoxNews, assorted Blogs, etc) and how the role the media played in 2004 was very different...

How important was the erosion of the Networks ability to control the news in 2004...

Would Bush have won without the Bloggers...?

How much did Ra^thergate help Bush?

Or is, to borrow Twain's phrase, is the decline of "old media" greatly exagerated...?

here is Michael Barone's take...

Please post alternative views

http://www.townhall.com/columnists/michaelbarone/mb20041115.shtml

Excellent post and article.

Probably the biggest story of the year was the ineffectiveness of the liberal media.

[iosip]

what liberal media?

[CARLHAYDEN]

There is an interesting time line in the decline of the power of the 'old' (liberal) media.

In 1940 they had the power to foist a person who just a year before had been a Democrat who had NEVER held elective political office on the Republican party as that party's Presidential nominee.

Twenty four years latter, their power had declined so much that despite everything they could do they could not prevent Barry M. Goldwater from winning the Republican nomination.

Forty years latter the 'old' media threw everything they could at George W. Bush to try to stop him from being reelected, with no sucess.

Americans are not dumber than Russians of a generation ago, who knew that Pravda was lying to them.  We (or at least a majority of American voters) know that the 'old' (liberal) media is really just a propaganda organ.

[iosip]

yes, here's how powerful the "liberal" media was...

in 1988 they singlehandedly destroyed the dukakis campaign.

(some "liberal" media)

[CARLHAYDEN]

Wrong again.

Dukakis destroyed himself.

[iosip]

wrong.

if not for the republican bias of the media he would have won.

[Shira]

Would Bush have won without the Bloggers...?

Would Bush have won if only one judge of the MA supreme court had voted against Gay Marriage instead of voting for it?

[J. J.]

Would Bush have won without the Bloggers...?

Would Bush have won if only one judge of the MA supreme court had voted against Gay Marriage instead of voting for it?

Yes, He lost in states where Gay Marraige prohibitions won, and he won by a much smaller margin in states where it won big.

[MODU]

wrong.

if not for the republican bias of the media he would have won.

Tell that to the media who, just this year, rated themselves as being more liberal than conservative.  Media, for about the last 4 decades, have trended from being journalists to being talking heads, and most of which with a liberal slant since that type of news sells better to the readers.  Honestly, do you really think that FoxNews would be doing so well right now if most of the media networks were conservative?  FoxNews is doing so well since they the missing choice that so many news watchers have been missing for so long.

[Will F.D. People]

In the past I felt the major networks and the NYT/Washington Post/LA Times expressed their liberal bias through the selection of stories they chose to report on. Example: during the Clinton impeachment trial I read a story in the paper about a life-long Republican in California who was so mad at the GOP for impeaching Clinton that he was going to change his registration and vowed to work for the Democratic presidential nominee the next time. I am positive that there are people (possibly in the South) who were life-long Democrats who were so upset by Clinton's behavior that they, too, changed their registration, but those people don't get written up in the newspaper.

However, since Bush got into office and with this election in particular, it seems that the media is actively putting out demonstrably false information. That is a new low, even for them. I think that their credibility has taken a huge hit.

I predict that over the next 5 years, one of the major networks will realign and take a conservative bent. It is just a numbers game -- there are too many people working the liberal side of the street going after a smaller and smaller audience. Their choice will be to change or perish.

[CARLHAYDEN]

Will.

You've got to understand that most of the people in the decision making positions at ABC, CBS, NBC, not to mention Time, the New York Times, Los Angeles Times, et al. are incapable of understanding that they are very liberal.

To them, the majority of the American people are ignorant, bigoted, rightwing nuts, and they (the media) are the 'moderates.'

Facts, logic, and declining ratings/readership have NO impact whatsoever on them.

They are like the dinosaurs, and will eventually die off because they are incapable of dealing with reality.

[OSR stands with Israel]

2004 may have been the last election dominated by the old media