Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
John Stewart Slams LSM Coverage of Sarah Palin Emails
06-24-2011, 11:19 PM
I almost missed this. Glad I didn't. This is just a genius piece of media analysis. Good on John Stewart for noticing that the LSM have become caricatures of themselves.
http://media.mtvnservices.com/mgid:cms: ... com:389409 The Daily Show - Pmail
Tags: Daily Show Full Episodes, Political Humor & Satire Blog, The Daily Show on Facebook
Posts: 4,885
Threads: 301
Joined: Jul 2010
Reputation:
8
"Not avaiable in your country"
Motherfucker.
Quote:LSM have become caricatures of themselves.[/quotre]
Liberal Socialist Media?
I was under the impression that, regardless of opinions and leanings all media had become self-parodying.
________________________________
--m(^0^)m-- Wot, no sig?
Posts: 25,535
Threads: 2,060
Joined: Feb 2005
Reputation:
12
Dartz Wrote:Liberal Socialist Media?
Maybe, but more likely "Left-Stream Media" in this context.
Of course, there are http://www.acronymfinder.com/LSM.html]dozens of other possibilities - it could be "Living Stream Ministry", "Local Sales Manager", or (my favourite) " Little Sex Machine"...
Dartz Wrote:I was under the impression that, regardless of opinions and leanings all media had become self-parodying.
I can't honestly disagree with you here. I believe I once heard that more people trusted Jon Stewart than trusted any of the serious US TV news anchors...
--
Rob Kelk
"Governments have no right to question the loyalty of those who oppose
them. Adversaries remain citizens of the same state, common subjects of
the same sovereign, servants of the same law."
- Michael Ignatieff, addressing Stanford University in 2012
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
"Lame stream media" is the usual appelation.
--------------
Epsilon
Posts: 3,394
Threads: 588
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
0
Actually it's none of those things. LSM is "Lame Stream Media". There's MSM or "Main Stream Media" but in a situation like this, they've become so out-of-touch that they earn the LSM moniker instead.
And damn - sorry about the out of country thing, Dartz. I'll see if I can find an upload on youtube for you or something.
Edit: Wow - Apparently those guys hammer Youtube HARD looking for Jon Stewart stuff to take down. I can't find any other source!
Posts: 8,933
Threads: 386
Joined: May 2006
Reputation:
3
Heh. Serves these people right. I love watching this guy rip into people. It's even better when he tag-teams with Stephen Colbert. (^_^)
Posts: 3,314
Threads: 306
Joined: Feb 2004
Reputation:
0
He's just doing his heavily sarcastic version of their breathless antici--say it!--pation for a release of Palin's Emails while Governor.
He shows clips of the media treating the release just as seriously as though they were covering a natural disaster or an outbreak of war.
''We don't just borrow words; on occasion, English has pursued other languages down alleyways to beat
them unconscious and rifle their pockets for new vocabulary.''
-- James Nicoll
Posts: 2,564
Threads: 324
Joined: Mar 2004
Reputation:
0
Well, the whole thing started because, the amount of time it took to release those emails turned out to be longer than her entire term of office. The fact or rumor (hard to tell which) that she was also conducting state business using accounts outside the official email accounts intentionally added fuel to the fire. If they have to redact sensitive government info, that I can see. Of course, if you have to look at every email and have to decide what is official and what is not, it gets to be pretty tedious and time consuming. That would lead one to ask the following questions: Are they hiding something? If so, what are they hiding?
http://motherjones.com/po...-palin-email-saga?page=1
The link to the story from the POV of the journalist who first asked for it.
This is the problem for politicians who want to make media access one-way. Once you start doing stalling tactics on material you don't want to get out, all you are doing is postponing and enlarging the feeding frenzy. Of course, what comes out later might end up influencing the current presidential campaign.
__________________
Into terror!, Into valour!
Charge ahead! No! Never turn
Yes, it's into the fire we fly
And the devil will burn!
- Scarlett Pimpernell
CattyNebulart
Unregistered
One thing you have to keep in mind big media is big because it is good at making money, so the reason behind this kind of coverage is that they think this will net them more viewers, and if they are wrong too often they go out of business.
So all in all this is probably what most of the news watching public wants. If it is not you should be able to out-compete them by providing what the people really do want.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Posts: 3,278
Threads: 137
Joined: Sep 2002
Reputation:
2
Maybe that was true in the past Catty.
Sadly nowadays the major news portals see themselves as the people who should be shaping the American citizen's awareness through deciding what said citizen should or should not hear about.
Hear that thunder rolling till it seems to split the sky?
That's every ship in Grayson's Navy taking up the cry-
NO QUARTER!!!
-- "No Quarter", by Echo's Children
CattyNebulart
Unregistered
Star Ranger4 Wrote:Maybe that was true in the past Catty.
Sadly nowadays the major news portals see themselves as the people who should be shaping the American citizen's awareness through deciding what said citizen should or should not hear about.
Extraordinary claims require extraordinary evidence.
Most large media are publicly traded corporations, if the stockholders seriously believed that the management of those corporations wasn't trying to maximize profits it would find itself under new management, and the previous management would possibly find itself under prosecution.
Investors who spend money to buy stocks tend not to do it for charity.
If they do indeed try to shape opinion it is because they think it will make them more money, and I do not see how opinion shaping comes into making more money.
E: "Did they... did they just endorse the combination of the JSDF and US Army by showing them as two lesbian lolicons moving in together and holding hands and talking about how 'intimate' they were?"
B: "Have you forgotten so soon? They're phasing out Don't Ask, Don't Tell."
Posts: 1,407
Threads: 182
Joined: Mar 2006
Reputation:
2
Star Ranger4 Wrote:Maybe that was true in the past Catty.
Sadly nowadays the major news portals see themselves as the people who should be shaping the American citizen's awareness through deciding what said citizen should or should not hear about. Don't paint every news organization with the same brush as Fox News. CNN literally does not give a shit what message they are sending out, so long as people are buying it. MSN is more left wing, but even they focus on sensationalism and ratings over any ideological agenda.
As Stewart points out several times in recent interviews with Fox, the 24h-news industry is built to cover stuff like 9/11 or Katrina or other major events that draw in lots and lots of viewers with uo-to-the-minute updates (and even then, most of their "updates" consist of "we don't know what's happening" and rampant speculation). Absent that, they create such stories to sell to people. Weinergate, for example. They do this because they have to sensationalize to sell news.
This isn't really anything new. Yellow journalism has been around since journalism has been around.
--------------
Epsilon
|
