 |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Discussion Membership
|
Regarding CJR's defense of CNN's debate
Television news and newspapers aren't irrelevant in the Internet age. What is irrelevant is the writing J-school graduates pass off as journalism. The reputation of the press will heal once we pass this kidney stone of some forty years of instructors and the students they have warped. Columbia Journalism Review illustrates the point with a string of words that compulsively puts down legitimate criticism of CNN's bogus debate questions without daring to address what was wrong. Not looking at things is not the best way to look at things. Whatever the discomfort, CJR needs to face that CNN blew it. Of course debates need the best questions, but biologists shouldn't suggest their best questions for a chemistry test. Debate questions were to address concerns of undecided Republicans. One does not search for such questions among rabid Democrats, fixed in their convictions and bent on winning at all costs. It is not news to belabor the obvious, but that's what CJR did. The quality of the questions, upon which the CJR column dwelt, was never an issue. Instead, although calculated to show how sharp it was, CJR's column exposed only its own condescension. CJR ends up a flip pseudo-educated Rosencrantz or Guildenstern playing its game of life oblivious to the realities underneath, until reality bites the player in the ass. CJR isn't high on my reading list because they represent a Dark Age of journalism. They risk being remembered, if at all, for shallow conceit instead of a backbone of humility and enlightenment. But don't expect them to notice. [Macro error: Can’t call the script because the name “commentIt” hasn’t been defined.] [Macro error: Can’t call the script because the name “commentIt” hasn’t been defined.]
|
|
||
|
