Adam Nagourney writes about a speaker who didn’t speak at the Democratic Part National Convention. This is what I mean by the Narrative - Nagourney had obviously decided, before the speech occurred, how it would be received and wrote it that way. That the speaker, Representative Barney Frank, didn’t actually speak is irrelevant. Yet I am expected to become informed by people like this? I am in fact better informed for not having read him at all.
But informing people simply isn’t the goal of modern journalism, it is creating the Narrative and controlling the conversation. Why shouldn’t I, as someone who respects information, not despise these people?
Update: Let’s not forget this little incident where Brian Ross falsely accused a Tea Partier of being the shooter in Aurora, CO. The key question “how did such a weakly based story make it on the air?”. Because it fit the Narrative and so all those layers of fact checkers and editors let it on by, once again misinforming any viewers. This exact thing has a long history in Old Media yet, somehow, it keeps happening. At what point can I reasonably argue that for Old Media, politics trumps facts for their reporting?