![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Blair's right, and they're scared
Jun. 12th, 2007 02:55 pmBlair voices his opinions on the degradation of the media.
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is leaving office at the end of the month, and this was the last chance he'd have to say something like this. I only wish he could have said it sooner. But as he mentions, the media would have come down on him, so there was no way to do it until he was no longer a viable target. Unless he'd had a spine from the start. Which he didn't.
That said, I agree with his analysis on every point.
In the interest of fairness, I guess, the BBC added a section at the end of the article with responses from various politicians. They talk about freedom of the press, and think Blair's insistence on more regulation of the media is a bad idea. I don't think they're worried about losing freedom of the press. I think they're worried that the media will change into a different animal if it starts reporting the news, instead of newsertainment. I think they've got the media figured out, and they like the devil they know. Yes, when they actually report the news, reporters editorialize more than they used to, but their opinions are not well-thought out or insightful. They're superificial and reactionary, and that's the way politicians want to keep it. They don't want reporters to be objective; they want them to keep the public from looking too deeply. By providing their own opinions about something, reporters give complacent viewers permission to not form conclusions of their own. And even though this article is dealing mainly with the press in the UK, it makes perfect sense when applied to America. We are, after all, a complacent nation.
(You can disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm just looking around my office full of intelligent people, and while all of them have read this week's "People" magazine and know everything there is to know about the latest celebrity scandal, none of them have visited a news site or read the paper today.)
I have a lot more to say about this, but I'm too pissed off to phrase it well enough, so I'm done.
Comments are encouraged! I miss lively debate!
Britain's Prime Minister Tony Blair is leaving office at the end of the month, and this was the last chance he'd have to say something like this. I only wish he could have said it sooner. But as he mentions, the media would have come down on him, so there was no way to do it until he was no longer a viable target. Unless he'd had a spine from the start. Which he didn't.
That said, I agree with his analysis on every point.
In the interest of fairness, I guess, the BBC added a section at the end of the article with responses from various politicians. They talk about freedom of the press, and think Blair's insistence on more regulation of the media is a bad idea. I don't think they're worried about losing freedom of the press. I think they're worried that the media will change into a different animal if it starts reporting the news, instead of newsertainment. I think they've got the media figured out, and they like the devil they know. Yes, when they actually report the news, reporters editorialize more than they used to, but their opinions are not well-thought out or insightful. They're superificial and reactionary, and that's the way politicians want to keep it. They don't want reporters to be objective; they want them to keep the public from looking too deeply. By providing their own opinions about something, reporters give complacent viewers permission to not form conclusions of their own. And even though this article is dealing mainly with the press in the UK, it makes perfect sense when applied to America. We are, after all, a complacent nation.
(You can disagree with me, and that's fine. I'm just looking around my office full of intelligent people, and while all of them have read this week's "People" magazine and know everything there is to know about the latest celebrity scandal, none of them have visited a news site or read the paper today.)
I have a lot more to say about this, but I'm too pissed off to phrase it well enough, so I'm done.
Comments are encouraged! I miss lively debate!
