"We have to figure out what journalism is going to be as the old business model collapses all around us ... "And I want to be--I want to try to be--a part of that undertaking. Will it work? Who the hell knows. But I'm at least going to look at this ... I'm not living in a fantasy 1965 world ... This is not a Mad Men romanticism about the news magazine. I'm entirely realistic about our prospects for economic success and the possibilities of finding a consistent audience for our journalism. These are incredibly difficult questions. That said, I believe it is a worth a good long look to see how the Newsweek--call it what you will--platform, big tent, whatever fits into a world that I think needs some common ground. I'm not saying that we're the only catcher in the rye standing between an informed public and the end of democracy. That's self-involved. But I defy you to make a compelling argument that the country is going to be better off with fewer places like this."
Well, defy this: It'd be hard to find a better example of the utter moral, intellectual, and economic collapse of traditional 20th century journalism than Newsweek Magazine. One year ago, upon the launch of the magazine's makeover, Meacham argued:
There will, for the most part, be two kinds of stories in the new NEWSWEEK. The first is the reported narrative—a piece, grounded in original observation and freshly discovered fact, that illuminates the important and the interesting. The second is the argued essay—a piece, grounded in reason and supported by evidence, that makes the case for something.
"Grounded in reason and evidence"? Newsweek's become nothing but a weekly mouthpiece for the hard left Democratic agenda, attacking traditionalism, shilling for the anti-tea party crowd, and foaming at the mouth with accusatory race-baiting. A classic refusal to look at both sides of an issue is the exact opposite of reason. It's blind prejudice, and that's what Meacham's rag represents. Ellis Cose had a piece last month called "Drowning in Hate: Ugly rhetoric perverts our politics." It's a disastrous rehash of the false allegation of racial epithets hurled during the Capitol Hill tea party in March. I defy you, Jon Meacham, to post any raw video and find one tea partier yelling the N-Word at a black congressional member. Can't do it. And the "spitting" incident was phony as well. So much for evidence and reason, and there's way more examples after that. The magazine's "Religious Case for Gay Marriage" was thoroughly discredited as an utter embarrassment. Folks should read Mollie Hemingway's rebuttal, where she notes with pure contempt, "if you are going to pretend that opposition to same-sex marriage is based Sola Scriptura, could we at least get our Scripture right?" Is this the "reason and evidence" Meacham proposes. Talk about fail.
As noted, the rag can't die soon enough. But listen to Meacham himself, who's a model of journalistic hubris in his interview with Jon Stewart last night:
As noted, the rag can't die soon enough. But listen to Meacham himself, who's a model of journalistic hubris in his interview with Jon Stewart last night:
| The Daily Show With Jon Stewart | Mon - Thurs 11p / 10c | |||
| Exclusive - Jon Meacham Extended Interview Pt. 1 | ||||
| ||||
No comments:
Post a Comment