Reaping What You Sow

A significant segment of U.S. media is upset, and rightfully so, that President Trump has called members of the media “the enemy of the people.” I’m anything but happy about this turn of events, but I have a question or two for all of these righteous media pundits who are now so outraged that, all of a sudden, they’re the main target for once:

What the hell did you expect after some three plus decades of fomenting conflict through news stories designed to outrage some group or another in order to keep your ratings up?

What did you expect when you turned news stories into profit centers based on entertainment value instead of comparatively moderate and less profitable news outlets?

Now that you’ve successfully polarized the American public and effectively made possible the election of, first, a movie star as president, and now a reality T.V. star, did you ever consider the fact that some of all that anger and rage you’ve stirred up just might come back to bite you?

Do any of you intend to take any responsibility for the results of your years of media bread and circuses, or are you just going to stand there and wring your hands, while continuing to maximize the bottom line?

Or do you intend to blame it all on others, on the popular appetite for sensation, or the need to make a buck to keep your executive bonuses, or on popular boredom with factual and balanced news?

Or will you try to take refuge behind the First Amendment, while ignoring the fact that the skillful presentation of accurate facts in an inaccurate context amounts to distortion and lying?

My grandmother was a teacher, and one of her pupils of whom she was inordinately proud was Walter Cronkite, as were many Americans. Are you pleased with where news has gone since Uncle Walter, Tom Brokaw, and Howard K. Smith?

Or did all of you think you could avoid reaping what you’ve sowed?

4 thoughts on “Reaping What You Sow”

  1. rehcra says:

    Umm.. what did we expect when we stopped directly paying for news stories and expected them to be given for free and supported by ad revenue?

    I think the news media has done an excellent job of maintaining their integrity given the economic restraints society has placed on them.

    And to be honest I sure as hell didn’t expect for it to be a OK to call a segment of society THE Enemy of the People because they were not working Altruistically enough or doing the inverse for the right people. But hell why not “Kill the Messenger”. There clearly at fault for the they delivered. I am sure that will solve our problems.

    -rehcra

  2. Alan says:

    This blog entry is effectively what I meant by my comment on the previous blog entry.

  3. Hannibal says:

    And the show must go on….its entertainment value people [so says the press]

  4. Tom says:

    Monmouth University Poll (like other polls) found that:

    “The findings also showed Americans diverging on what constitutes “fake news,” with 65 percent saying it applies broadly to the editorial decisions outlets make over what topics to cover and 25 percent more narrowly defining it to apply only to the spread of factually incorrect information.”

    This disparity in definition might explain some outlandish opinions about the media in general. Maybe this result is also the reason for the fact that the editors have to now reap what they sowed? This finding would also add significantly to the polarization of the citizens by the actions of our politicians. I do not see that this is the reason for the lack of Cronkite or the like, although it might explain Hannity or Mathews.

    But then we are the viewers, readers, buyers of the advertised goods. We also elect the types of people we feel we want as our public representatives and international examples of US democracy/republicanism.

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published.