The ‘Daily Orange’ reported on Robert Kennedy Jr’s speech at Syracuse last night.
It is a article so typical of those churned out by the insipid publication, an article by a guy well prepared for the opinionless and vapid media that dominates in the American media landscape.
These articles go like this:
But the final insult is this:
After his speech, some students thought Kennedy’s verbal assault on Bush and his environmental actions had been a little too radical for a university audience.
So where exactly can one talk about the truth today? Does one not expect opinion from opinion leaders?
This reminds me of the undergraduates who respond to the question, “What do you think?” with the answer, “There is a debate”. Thanks. no shit.
So well written, accurate and yet totally pointless. These kids are so keen to suckle on the corporate media nipple that they have adjusted their writing styles to exactly match it. Student Media in the US is simply a vapid audition for professional journalism. Such a waste of opportunity.
Posted by james at February 6, 2004 01:14 PM | TrackBackOh, curse those vapid facts!
If jouralism is a system to provide citizens with information they need to be free and self-governing, I suppose your statement that “Student Media” (as if it were all run by FoxNews) “is simply a vapid audition for professional journalism,” might be correct. However, it seems that you are confused about the real American media landscape, which is in fact hardly opinionless.
News, or the presentation of the facts so close as they can be ascertained, is not meant to be infused with opinion. Unfortunately, many outlets in the U.S. have ditched that tenet in favor of a sensationalization of current events, the majority of which do no real service to this country’s self-governing citizens. That is, opinion and the cloaking of the facts is the real problem in this country. It is certainly not too many media organizations remaining unbiased. Please!
None of this is to say that truth or objectivity can be fully reached by the newsmedia. Of course that would be naive. However, the Daily Orange, insipid as you might think it, does a respectable job at presenting the facts. You, in the audience, may then have an opinion about those facts. Imagine how furious you’d be if the paper decided to disagree with all of RFK’s message, in a news article no less.
Newspapers have opinion sections. These are meant for a meaningful public debate on the issues of the day, which are ideally presented to the reader in the news section of the paper. This is the way it has been done, to great effect, and there is no need to change the system now unless you intend to narrow the already conglomerated field of media outlets even further.
It seems to me you take issue with a student’s comment that RFK’s speech was perhaps too radical for the campus. That’s fine; this kid was probably an idiot, but the newspaper is not stupid for quoting him because he probably represents a larger segment of the student population than any of us would like to admit. These are the facts, on the paper, for us to read. Then we come up with our own opinion. This is how it works. If it worked any other way, we would have to get all of our information, about everything, firsthand.
There is a problem with getting the facts straight in the media, and that is where critics should be focusing their energies, not on a lack of opinion.
When I am on SU’s campus, I refuse to read the Daily Orange. I have found too many grammatical mistakes as well as erroneous information to accept it as news. However, in stating that, I would have to say that the article on RFK’s speech at SU wasn’t as bad as I would have expected it. I thought it gave a nice overview of what went on there - at least enought to give me an idea of RFK’s opinions. The only problem I actually had with the article was the opinion of the writer coming out through his usage of phrases like “blasting Bush” or “blamed Bush and every other politician influenced by large corporate donations for the current state of environmental affairs.” I think that when writing an article that is based on a speech, you should be more objective. Regardless of whether you agree or disagree, a newpaper ARTICLE should be as objective as possible. Leave your opinions at home, or at least off your desk until you reach the opinions page. As for the students who thought his opinion too radical for mixed audiences, get over it kids. Life’s a constant disagreement of opinion. If RFK feels a specific way, why shouldn’t he voice his feelings? It’s a free country (well we like to pretend it is). YOu have just as much right to disagree with his opinion… but not the right to keep him from voicing it. If he can’t be honest about his political opinions on a University campus, where can he?
I wish I had been able to go see him speak - I think I would have enjoyed it. And I’m INSANELY jealous that you get to see Garrison Keillor. Bastard… bragging about it in your blog…
I think you guys or maybe even girls need to post how much of an idiot and a puppet of large corporation that Bush really is and always will be. Look at his name “Bush”, look at his vice-president’s name “Dick.” My theory is that Bush is like a woman that has been beaten by her husband, he just keeps running back to the large corporations that run this country. Look at the Enron scandal I personally have not seen or heard anything, but of course i am from a small town in Indiana, about what happened to those executives. I bet their sitting on a boat in the south pacific drinking a gin’n’tonic, watching 700 club on their televisions while on their boats. I would like to see Bush become a crack adict and scouring the streets lookin for his crack and selling everything owns and living on the streets. So he can really see how his “tax cuts” really work for him.
2595 http://www.play-poker-i.com cool place to play poker online