Media

Legacy media: What, if anything, is in it for them to be so useless?

Spread the love

An interesting column by one, Howard Rich, the moral of which is not to rely on legacy media for news you actually need:

In the immediate aftermath of the tragic Tucson shooting earlier this year, the legacy press took it a step further — essentially implying that the new media was complicit in the attack on U.S. Rep. Gabrielle Giffords by virtue of the “climate of hate” it helped create in America.

Obviously, the facts of the Tucson case quickly (and completely) debunked this theory — but not before a parade of liberal talking heads had spewed a torrent of reckless vitriol on new media outlets and the First Amendment freedom they exercise.

But is there something in it for them?

Fast-forward three months to April 6, when reporter Matthew Boyle of The Daily Caller published a report outlining the details of Barack Obama’s slush fund.

Hmmm. I’ve always thought that they were simply stunned by the swiftness of new media surges and reacted by clinging to elites for protection. Rich offers,

American poet Ella Wheeler Wilcox once wrote that “to sin by silence when we should protest makes cowards of men.”

It apparently makes cowards of the media, too — although a compelling case could be made that these mainstream outlets were paid for their silence. Fortunately for taxpayers, the new media was there to uncover and expose the truth regarding this corruption.

One Reply to “Legacy media: What, if anything, is in it for them to be so useless?

  1. 1
    Meleagar says:

    The legacy media only appears to be useless if one doesn’t understand its true nature – an apparatchik of the socialist left. Their job is not to report the news, but rather to control the narrative so that all arguments, debates and events are framed, organized, and described with the socialist goal in mind.

    What they pick to present as “news” is carefully selected and contextualized to fit the agenda.

Leave a Reply