Norman Borlaug and More of Why the Press is Stupid

Samir Mehta | September 14, 2009
[hidden by request]

Jackie Mason | September 15, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 15, 2009
I'll play devil's advocate: They have a business to run. 50 times as many people watch, listen to, or read a story about Patrick Swayze than about Norman Borlaug. I like to give people the benefit of the doubt and believe that there are a lot of good, principled journalists out there who first got into this line of work because they believed in it, but these people work for corporations. They produce ratings or they get replaced. Small independent news sources are going out of business all around us. State-run news sources are out of the question. I don't see a non-profit donation-based service doing better than an independent. Are there other alternatives?

Believe me, I despair too. I'm just wondering to what end do we complain about it. RIP Norman; thank you for making a difference.

Samir Mehta | September 15, 2009
[hidden by request]

Amy Austin | September 15, 2009
Well, for another thing (and not that this isn't another thing to criticize/fault the media for), people already know much more about people like Farrah Fawcett and Patrick Swayze (whose death does actually sadden me) than they do about most Nobel Prize winners. It's sort of natural for such an entertainment-heavy culture to be overly interested in those providing the entertainment... especially when said entertainers are basically stalked by the press these days. Is it more the fault of the consumers or the press??? I say it's more the fault of the press -- they are every bit as lazy as the sheeple they feed their regurgitated "fluff" to. After all, how often do you just see the same source stories from a handful of major affiliates run through all of the "different" smaller publications/sources? Which is easier, to actually research and/or investigate a lesser-known story, or just to simply rewrite the same facts of the same story that all the big headliners are telling?

I always detest when I hear Bill Maher say that he has to talk about something on his show that isn't really "news", because it's what's *in* the news, and that's his job -- as a satirist -- to talk about what is, in fact, in the news. I detest it, because I know that Bill Maher is a smart man and one who is more well-informed than that. But I also respect what he does do with what is in the news... especially whenever he *does* seize upon an opportunity to slip in a name or event that you can be sure that the general public at large knows nothing about. And he never misses an opportunity to express his regard that the average American isn't bright or informed and that the media is even worse... or "stupider" as he put it this last week when a chance for the regular jab came around again. On the one hand, I sometimes feel like rolling my eyes whenever he interjects to further define something that he thinks most people don't understand (again, this week it was about the meaning of "single-payer system" with regards to healthcare reform). But on the other hand, the fact that I am occasionally the one remiss in the knowledge proffered is proof positive that it's true more often than not. And his digs are almost a challenge to all viewers ignorant on whatever subject he slips in to go and LOOK IT UP... just to not feel like the dumbass he thinks you are.

Also... pardon me if I sound both bleak *and* glib when I say that just because Malthus's calculations weren't realized on schedule, it doesn't mean that they aren't simply postponed... with even bigger problems in store for those who don't believe that overpopulation is *still* very much a problem with serious implications to global supply and demand. I'm not suggesting "despair" over "intellect and compassion" here... merely pointing out that it very much seems to be human nature to dig ourselves into a hole with a problem (such as overpopulation), and then -- rather than to smartly recognize the digging and cease it (e.g., decrying procreation instead of glorifying it, or even prioritizing it) -- revel in the newfound permission to keep right on digging once somebody throws a bit of dirt into the hole (engineered crop expansion, even as rainforests and farmlands are razed and developed upon to support a continually burgeoning population that *will* eventually result in the outcomes predicted by Malthus!) -- sorry.

Also... Happy Birthday, Samir. ;-)

Jackie Mason | September 16, 2009
[hidden by request]

Scott Hardie | September 17, 2009
One thing that bothers me very much about today's press is something you touched on, Samir: They just repeat what is said by politicians and spokespeople, while doing very little debunking or challenging. I'm not necessarily looking for deep, thorough investigation into every last news story, but if I can debunk a politician's claim with sixty seconds of research, why can't they? Apparently, their idea of "digging deeper" is to request a quote from the opposing political party, a statement which is always contrary and useless. I can guess what the RNC spokesperson is going to say about every move Obama makes, thanks.

Jackie Mason | September 17, 2009
[hidden by request]