Megan McArdle puts forth a potential explanation for the mainstream media's (MSM) absence on the tumultous weekend in Iran. I remarked earlier that the coverage in the US was abysmal. Not only did they have little to no mention of the events in Iran (and no expert panel to discuss/analyze), zero stations broadcasted Netanyahu's speech yesterday in which he backed a Palestinian state. I did happen to catch a story on Fox about the increase in the number of large jellyfish in our oceans. Embarrassing. Here is Megan,
One of Andrew's readers asks where the MSM is on Iran. The New York Times and numerous internet sites have wall-to-wall coverage, including Andrew's sterling work. Other outlets practically ignored the biggest story currently going on in the world over the weekend...
But I think Andrew's reader's question is ultimately a business story. Why doesn't the MSM have more coverage? Because they don't have the manpower. The cable networks are hamstrung by the fact that they don't have much footage of what's going on in Iran. As I watch, they're showing a combination of shots of peaceful protests in Western countries, lying propaganda footage from Iran's state television system, and random b-roll of unidentified protests in some unidentified country that does not seem to be Iran. This is less than must-see-TV.The print media is hamstrung by the fact that they've slashed their foreign bureaus to the bone--and then amputated the bone. There are too few journalists in too few places to cover a big story like this.
Posts
No comments:
Post a Comment