Wednesday, June 08, 2005
Journalism is Dead
The American Thinker:links a story about "crazy Katie Couric fawning before scandal-plagued Kofi Annanm and urging him to interfere in US politics. "
That reminded me this morning while flipping channels on the three networks -- not one of talking heads could conduct an actual interview. Every member of the morningshow gang that I saw did nothing but make statements and ask the subject to agree. I wanted to shout, "Objection, the idiot journalist imposter is leading the witness." I really see no point in having the subject appear for the charade of an interview when the complete story is told by the reporter and the subject is asked to do nothing but agree.
Is this method of questioning used to create the illusion that the reporters are omniscient and therefore to be believed in all things? Or is it simply a way to save time and keep the subjects from saying something that might be embarrassing or incriminating. These reports are mostly throw-away human interest stuff with plain folks as the subjects. I guess the talking heads can't take the chance that Billy Bob is going to say something like, "Yeah, I just come outside to see if them two kids across the river was fornicatin' again when that big ole bar come over the fence with a look on her face that was meaner than Hillary Clinton after one of Bill's midnight intern meetin's. She laid that claw across my backside and it hurt worse than when my wife found the still in the root cellar..."
The major networks, they decide. End of discussion.
That reminded me this morning while flipping channels on the three networks -- not one of talking heads could conduct an actual interview. Every member of the morningshow gang that I saw did nothing but make statements and ask the subject to agree. I wanted to shout, "Objection, the idiot journalist imposter is leading the witness." I really see no point in having the subject appear for the charade of an interview when the complete story is told by the reporter and the subject is asked to do nothing but agree.
Is this method of questioning used to create the illusion that the reporters are omniscient and therefore to be believed in all things? Or is it simply a way to save time and keep the subjects from saying something that might be embarrassing or incriminating. These reports are mostly throw-away human interest stuff with plain folks as the subjects. I guess the talking heads can't take the chance that Billy Bob is going to say something like, "Yeah, I just come outside to see if them two kids across the river was fornicatin' again when that big ole bar come over the fence with a look on her face that was meaner than Hillary Clinton after one of Bill's midnight intern meetin's. She laid that claw across my backside and it hurt worse than when my wife found the still in the root cellar..."
The major networks, they decide. End of discussion.
// posted by Zerin Hood @ 10:05 AM 
