More on the media
There are many publications and blogs that monitor the press. One of my favorites is Donald Luskin's blog which has made high sport out of skewering Paul Krugman. Read More.
Tuesday, April 06, 2004
Monday, April 05, 2004
Lost in smoke
Today's paper has a story that Philip Morris is offering $1 biln to pay for anti-smuggling and counterfeiting. MO wants the EU to then not entangle it in litigation.
So, let me get this straight. MO wants to pay to stop smuggling and counterfeiting. Well, they should! It damages their business! But they want the State to be the enforcer.
They then want to use this payment to stop litigation! Good move! Pay for something you should be paying for anyway and then ask for mercy on the litigation side! What a move!
So, let me get this straight. MO wants to pay to stop smuggling and counterfeiting. Well, they should! It damages their business! But they want the State to be the enforcer.
They then want to use this payment to stop litigation! Good move! Pay for something you should be paying for anyway and then ask for mercy on the litigation side! What a move!
Are newspapers worse than they used to be?
A lot of people are pointing to the recent number of scandals in newspapers, such as Jayson Blair, as evidence that newspapers are at a low ebb. My perspective is different.
Actually, I would argue that the media does a poor job of accuracy but that this is as good as it has ever been.
To the first point, there is a phenomenom whereby everybody knows that the media is very often way off the mark in the areas that the reader is an expert in. However, everybody seems to believe what they read in every other ares that the media covers.
A recent study suggested that 56% of Americans believed that media stories were inaccurate and 62% said that the media generally tried to cover up its mistakes rather than admitting them. Effectively, the media holds others to much higher standards than it holds itself to.
At the same time, could anyone possibly suggest that the media is far more responsible and objective that in 1900? 1930? 1950? and so on. The reality is that the media is actually more responsible and less driven by sensationalism and opinion than has traditionally been the case. We may complain about the left leaning bias of the Times or the right leaning bias of Fox News but it is exactly this constant complaining that is forcing the media to stifle it's opinion more and more.
Is it bad? Yes, but the best it has ever been.
Actually, I would argue that the media does a poor job of accuracy but that this is as good as it has ever been.
To the first point, there is a phenomenom whereby everybody knows that the media is very often way off the mark in the areas that the reader is an expert in. However, everybody seems to believe what they read in every other ares that the media covers.
A recent study suggested that 56% of Americans believed that media stories were inaccurate and 62% said that the media generally tried to cover up its mistakes rather than admitting them. Effectively, the media holds others to much higher standards than it holds itself to.
At the same time, could anyone possibly suggest that the media is far more responsible and objective that in 1900? 1930? 1950? and so on. The reality is that the media is actually more responsible and less driven by sensationalism and opinion than has traditionally been the case. We may complain about the left leaning bias of the Times or the right leaning bias of Fox News but it is exactly this constant complaining that is forcing the media to stifle it's opinion more and more.
Is it bad? Yes, but the best it has ever been.
