Welcome to European Tribune. It's gone a bit quiet around here these days, but it's still going.
Display:
In the mid-80s I subscribed (paid for) two newspapers and three news magazines and subscribed to several free professional journals.  Over the years I gradually let my subscriptions lapse until a couple of years ago I finally quit paying for The Economist.  

There just wasn't any point, anymore.

Most news media content production is as an intermediary between the news source or news maker and their audience, most of that consists of re-writing press or even merely cut-and-pasting news releases.  Now, if I want to find something out, I can access the press release directly.

Another factor was the growth of pseudo-objectivity.  The inability of journalists - defined broadly - or their editors - defined broadly - to distinguish between intellectually valid point/counter-point and intellectual rubbishing nay-saying.  This is particularly seen in the Global Climate Change 'discussion' where the corporate media presents ill-backed and even wrong opinions as valid arguments.  

And last, only to mention, is journalistic ignorance of the area, field, purview of the subject they write about.  Letting one example suffice for all, the common practice of removing qualifying adjectives from scientific and technical communications, even when the journalist gets the main details correct, spurious.

Wading through this intellectual goo to find the Information is a task needing more time than I can afford.  Merely trying to keep-up with publications in my own field is a 24/7 struggle.  I can use the Internet to go directly to the source or to a previously validated source via the Internet and save myself the bother of sieving through the General Ignorance spewed by the Mass Media.

 

She believed in nothing; only her skepticism kept her from being an atheist. -- Jean-Paul Sartre

by ATinNM on Sat Jul 3rd, 2010 at 01:17:11 PM EST

Others have rated this comment as follows:

Display:

Occasional Series