Meachem is right: Journalism *is* conflict driven.

While pursuing a Journalism degree, I was given an assignment to "write an article about the proposed city budget for Bexel (OH)."

I did so. It was informative, analytic, and comprehensive.

I got a "C" and the word "BORING" scrawled across the front page.

Well ... yes ... I had to admit, it *was* boring: It was the damned city budget info for Bexel!

I eventually learned how to snap things up, find angles, and try to say something about what I was writing about. But it *is* far easier if the topic has inherent "tension" in it.

Too many of today's Journalists are either lazy, overworked, or unskilled, IMO. They rely heavily on overt conflict -- focusing so intently that they manufacture it where it doesn't really exist.

The right wing echo chamber is in full swing again. First one network tells a falsehood, then another network repeats it, another network attacks from a different point of view, another station reinforces it, and finally they are all summarizing the aggregate of their deceptions as if they they got it, and are passing news on to their audiences. T
he problem, of course, is that it isn't news, they are selling propaganda to persuade their audience about matters that are both inconsequential and superficial, therefore ending the debate with falsehoods. When they are not able to deceive, they obfuscate. When they are not able to obfuscate they confuse. When they could have respected their audiences they make fools of them. It is a disgrace. It is betrayal. It is self-serving garbage. It is anti-American and it is shameful. And all the while they pat each other on the back, telling each other just how smart they are.

Mark Whitaker was no better as an editor - We have him to thank in large measure for blurring the lines between News and Advertising. I'm not sure the guy knows the difference. Little wonder he ended up at NBC News.

Conflict, the essence of drama, sells?! DUH!

One good thing about Don Imus not being on MSNBC any more is that we don't have to be treated to a weekly dose of Mr. Meachem's pronoucements of the obvious. (But I suppose that tendancy makes a good editor.)

I think it's great when guys like the editor there go on shows like the Daily Show and speak their mind... and then never act on it when they get back to where it matters - their position of power.

It's just friggin' great!

I greatly admire Jon Meacham. He is absolutely brilliant. Newsweek is actually a good magazine at present, and I believe he has a great deal to do with that fact.

Oh, as shown in the Daily Show interview, he is deeply into info-tainment and is a yellow journalist, a hardcore member of the Major Yellow Media. But, how many of them can be so honest about this reality as he is?

Yes, I wish he were not so rare, because the major yellow media is so largely disreputable and dispicable. I don't expect we are going to see a legitimate and proportionate mainstream journalism in our lifetimes, but Meacham does represent a brighter shade of yellow.

I notice the Newsweek guy says Huckabee, Ron Paul and Kucinich are not viable and Guiliani, Hillary and Obama are regardless of votes they get. It is conflict driven all right. The MSM supports the conflict in Iraq.

It's quite eerie how much the Bush administration's and the corporate media's approach to business are alike...

This is an interesting evaluation.

We stopped getting ANY newspapers 10 years ago - they were all too conservative. Writers like Kass and Charon - just to name a few from the Chicago Tribune - turned reading the paper into an unpleasant experience.

We turned off the TV in our house 17 years ago. No exceptions. We watch NOTHING. We didn't want our children owned by corporate America - NOT to mention the really trashy shows (yes - we missed some good stuff - that's life ...)

They can keep their conflict driven media - we've never been sorry for our decisions.

*

So, news is conflict drive. How is that a surprise?

Any good story has tension, conflict, some kind of battle against adversity, winners, losers, and some kind of a surprise. Otherwise it's just boring and nobody wants to know.

How much more so in this day and age, when news departments are treated as "profit centres" rather than public services?

I wish Meacham were only boring. The problem is, he uses his considerable influence to drag religion into discussions of politics and public policy. He thinks it fitting and proper that we should do this. And he talks of "America's 'public religion' -- the broad belief in a God who created the world, who was attentive to history and to prayers, who intervened in the affairs of humankind through providence, and who would ultimately reward or punish men for their conduct."
For some reason, Meacham is not content to follow Jesus' advice in Matthew 6:6:
"But thou, when thou prayest, enter into thy closet, and when thou hast shut thy door, pray to thy Father which is in secret; and thy Father which seeth in secret shall reward thee openly."
Maybe it's because pushing religion in public is just so damned lucrative.

"Release the Goldberg tapes"

what Conflict, it a fake news show with fake conflict, newsweek and the daily show what's the difference.