Discussion:
Why There Are No Dilbert Style Comic Strips Ridiculing the Legacy Media
(too old to reply)
Bret Cahill
2013-07-15 06:04:16 UTC
Permalink
What goes on behind closed doors at the legacy media certainly meets all the requirements of a good Dilbert strip.

After all, not only are the legacy media 99.9% private sector like Dilbert's employer, the media are 99.9% controlled by the rest of the private sector.

Such a comic strip should be Dilbert to the nth power.

Dilbert on steroids.

Jon Stewart does what he can but be honest. Jon is no Scott Adams.

The problem is that the legacy media need to dupe the public into believing that they are "independent" and on the side of the "common man."

This is so impossible it's not even funny.

Anyone else have any other theories?


Bret Cahill
Neolibertarian
2013-07-15 16:04:38 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
What goes on behind closed doors at the legacy media certainly meets all the
requirements of a good Dilbert strip.
After all, not only are the legacy media 99.9% private sector like Dilbert's
employer, the media are 99.9% controlled by the rest of the private sector.
Such a comic strip should be Dilbert to the nth power.
Dilbert on steroids.
Jon Stewart does what he can but be honest. Jon is no Scott Adams.
The humor of Dilbert is found in the self contradictions of bureaucracy.

Large companies require the establishment of bureaucratic institutions
in order to function, but they pay a heavy price in long and short run
inefficiencies by doing so. These inefficiencies are the crux of Dilbert
humor.

This helps explain how start-up companies can so often overtake large,
established corporations. They've yet to succumb to bureaucratic
practices.

Many private sector mid-level employees find Dilbert funny, but almost
ALL government bureaucrats find Dilbert absolutely hilarious.
Post by Bret Cahill
The problem is that the legacy media need to dupe the public into believing
that they are "independent" and on the side of the "common man."
Are you old enough to remember Frank Capra?

How about Walter Cronkite?

Edward Murrow?

Like many of your hopelessly ignorant formula-statements, you don't seem
to be grasping any of the pertinent facts concerning your "legacy media."

Jon Leibowitz (Jon Stewart) is a pale imitation of Johnny Carson (who
became an important political satirist and entertainer, especially from
1970's-1990s).

The Daily Show averages 2.3 million viewers.

By comparison, The Walking Dead gets 10 million.

Johnny Carson averaged 33 million each night.

Stewart is woefully uninformed, which might present a problem if he were
a journalist. As it is, he depends upon the reliable fact that his
audience is even more woefully uninformed than he is.
Post by Bret Cahill
This is so impossible it's not even funny.
Anyone else have any other theories?
The Hollywood myth of the "Cub Reporter Hero Dragon slayer" of the 1930s
pretty much disappeared after WWII.

Murrow and others tried to keep the myth alive, but in retrospect not
very effectively.

Sure people bought into it, but more and more became suspicious over
time. Lots of people began to murmur that Cronkite was a Pinko (an
American communist sympathizer), though these murmurs were dismissed by
the intelligentsia of the day.

Of course, after he retired, Cronkite made no bones about being in
complete sympathy with communist and socialist regimes, and socialism in
general. He was quite blatant about it when he no longer had to deny it
in order to pick up his paycheck.

It was a horrible mistake for news outlets to pretend objectivity (most
newspapers, news magazines, news outlets and tv news shows from
1945-1980 pretended objectivity with varying success).

The "Yellow Journalism" of the Gilded Age caused a pushback, with
competing newspapers claiming to be objective. The idea was, there's
cheap, sensationalist journalism, and then there's genuine, objective
journalism. "All the news that's fit to print."

That was tossed overboard during the Depression.

WWII brought back the idea of "Objective Journalism." Edward Murrow
found that the whole nation trusted ever word he spoke.

That was too much power for any one man to wield.

All the networks, news weeklies and national newspapers began to pretend
objectivity.

No blatant, pointless fraud like that can ever end well.

It didn't.

Rush Limbaugh, who never EVER pretended to be objective about anything,
carries 25 million listeners a day. AM Radio is pretty much filled with
commentators who never EVER pretend objectivity. There may be close to
50 million people listening to conservative talk radio each day.

Those who read Dilbert, those who watch the Daily Show and Colbert
Report are a tiny fringe.

At the height of the Tea Party Demonstration Movement, Stewart decided
to go Toe-to-Toe with Glen Beck.

Beck had a "Restoring Honor" demonstration on the National Mall.

So Stewart/Colbert had one there a few months later.

The contrasting facts and optics of the competing rallies were pretty
much self explanatory.

Stewart and Colbert aren't even good satire.
--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Bret Cahill
2013-07-15 18:15:43 UTC
Permalink
Post by Neolibertarian
What goes on behind closed doors at the legacy media certainly meets all the > requirements of a good Dilbert strip. > > After all, not only are the legacy media 99.9% private sector like Dilbert's > employer, the media are 99.9% controlled by the rest of the private sector. > > Such a comic strip should be Dilbert to the nth power. > > Dilbert on steroids. > > Jon Stewart does what he can but be honest. Jon is no Scott Adams.
The humor of Dilbert is found in the self contradictions of bureaucracy.
Dilbert ridicules the private sector that the Gipster said "solves all problems."

. . .
Post by Neolibertarian
Many private sector mid-level employees find Dilbert funny, but almost ALL government bureaucrats find Dilbert absolutely hilarious.
Oil refinery workers post the strip as a serious protest. They do not think it's funny.

No laughing allowed.


. . .
Post by Neolibertarian
Anyone else have any other theories?
The Hollywood myth of the "Cub Reporter Hero Dragon slayer" of the 1930s pretty much disappeared after WWII. Murrow and others tried to keep the myth alive, but in retrospect not very effectively.
That's not an answer as to why there is no media equivalent to Dilbert's employer.

The real reason is a no brainer: Adams is _working for_ the legacy media.

How could you miss that easy lob?

There should be an opportunity online for a former reporter who could expose the exchanged glances, "tactful" handling [censorship] of inconvenient stories by clueless [naive about the media] reporters.

The really fun part would be when Hillary wants to discuss hiking taxes on the rich. The legacy media sound the alarm like pocket gophers spotting a hawk.

"MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS! CODE ONE ALERT! HILLARY WANTS TO GET THE POLITICAL DISCUSSION ON ECONOMIC ISSUES! Elizabeth, start gush hyping abortion in Texas. Interview every fundy in entire state or Koch will stop the funding! Ted, do something on gays. What? How in the hell would I know what the gays' cause celebre is right now? That's _your_ job to keep up with gay issues. Were you lying about being gay on your application? Now get out there or we'll lose an order of magnitude more funding than your salery. Alice, get on gun control. Go into a trailer park and find a trailer with a confederate flag in the window. What? Hell yes it's legal for you to knock on the door. Where did you go to journalism school?"

"The Clintons must be stopped anyway possible. Just yesterday someone online suggested that they were wise to our business plan or lack thereof. We'll be ruined!"


Bret Cahill
Blair Elia Bertram
2013-07-16 01:18:48 UTC
Permalink
An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Sat, 18 May 2013 21:30:21 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Dems got Nixon out of office by focusing one scandal.
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

On the night of August 7, 1974, Senators Barry Goldwater (R) and Hugh
Scott (R) and Congressman John Jacob Rhodes (R) met with Nixon in the
Oval Office and told the president that he not only faced certain
impeachment in the House, but that there were enough votes in the
Senate to convict and remove him. Goldwater and Scott told him that,
at most, 15 Senators were willing to vote for acquittal. Realizing
that he had no chance of staying in office, Nixon decided to resign.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Watergate_scandal#Resignation

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Neolibertarian
2013-07-16 02:29:55 UTC
Permalink
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Neolibertarian
Post by Bret Cahill
What goes on behind closed doors at the legacy media certainly meets all
the > requirements of a good Dilbert strip. > > After all, not only are
the legacy media 99.9% private sector like Dilbert's > employer, the
media are 99.9% controlled by the rest of the private sector. > > Such a
comic strip should be Dilbert to the nth power. > > Dilbert on steroids.
Jon Stewart does what he can but be honest. Jon is no Scott Adams.
The humor of Dilbert is found in the self contradictions of bureaucracy.
Dilbert ridicules the private sector that the Gipster said "solves all problems."
Dilbert reflects the life of working for a large corporation.

There are no corporations as large as your federal and state
governments. Not even close.

Dilbert does not reflect the life of working for a small corporation,
where what you do always matters to the bottom line.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Neolibertarian
Many private sector mid-level employees find Dilbert funny, but almost ALL
government bureaucrats find Dilbert absolutely hilarious.
Oil refinery workers post the strip as a serious protest. They do not think it's funny.
No laughing allowed.
That's about the lamest thing I've heard in years.

Besides, "oil refinery workers" begs the question. But I'm used to that
from you.
Post by Bret Cahill
Post by Neolibertarian
Post by Bret Cahill
Anyone else have any other theories?
The Hollywood myth of the "Cub Reporter Hero Dragon slayer" of the 1930s
pretty much disappeared after WWII. Murrow and others tried to keep the
myth alive, but in retrospect not very effectively.
That's not an answer as to why there is no media equivalent to Dilbert's employer.
The "media" has always been equivalent to "Dilbert's employer."

They reward sloth like any large corporation, as long as that sloth is
within procedure and protocol.

How else do you imagine their business models all failed so horribly and
so suddenly? First the network news began to fail, then all the large
newspapers and news weeklies went under.

You're discussing these issues within the context of popular media and
culture. So, let's consider the movie "All the President's Men" (1976).

This was a Redford project. He consciously attempted to make it harken
back to the genre of 1930s movies about newspapermen, which often
centered around a cub reporter risking it all to uncover corruption
downtown.

If you're at all familiar with popular movies from the 1930s, I'm sure
you're well aware of the genre.

Today, we know that almost everything in Woodward's book was either made
up out of whole cloth, or he'd gotten it wrong in one way or another.
Almost nothing of his reporting had gotten anything right (except for
what little Mark Felt was actually feeding him, and all of Felt's info
was completely self-serving). We know that Woodward is not beyond
writing about, for instance, an interview he conducted with a key
government official who we later discovered was hospitalized with a coma
at the time.

Redford, probably unaware of Woodward's unreliability, and certainly
unaware of any context outside his own preconceived notions, wanted to
put faces and images to the Watergate story as only Hollywood movies can
do.

All the President's Men was, in all actuality, an unintentional comedy.
Few realized it at the time, of course, and fewer still actually
remember the movie at all today.

The funniest parts of the movie were the depictions of Woodward and
Bernstein actually interviewing people and following up leads. Even
funnier was the scene when they were in the Library of Congress actually
looking something up. Reporters stopped doing that long before there was
an internet. Now they get most of their stories from the internet blogs
that reporters and journalists claim to loathe.

Long before Woodward's day, news reporters and journalists stopped doing
research, and instead wholly relied on government officials to feed them
their stories. Woodward relied on the contacts he acquired in the Naval
Academy and Pentagon early on. Later, these contacts would lead him to
Felt.

This is why top reporters were hard to unseat. The government officials
sought out the big boys they could trust as "useful idiots" to feed
their stories to.

But funniest of all was the scene where Ben Bradlee (for those playing
along at home, he was the chief editor of the Washington Post) hesitates
before going forward with the Watergate story.

Heh.

Bradlee was a ubiquitous extra in all the Kennedy home movies (available
on line these days). He sailed with Jack on his boat, he spent
Christmases with him, Jackie and the kids, and was an unapologetic
Kennedy-phile all his life (he's over 90 today).

One thing all Kennedy-philes undeniably share in common is a
deep-down-in-the-soul hatred and loathing for Richard Nixon. Bradlee was
hardly an exception in this regard.

He never hesitated to run with the Watergate story. There's no evidence
anywhere (except in Woodward's book) that he hesitated. He ran with it
when no other newspaper in the country thought it had legs.

In retrospect, the story probably didn't have legs. Precious little of
what was reported in the Post's pages seems to have held up to scrutiny
and time. Liddy & Hunt didn't actually meet with Nixon. Back in those
naive days, there had to be a direct connection.

They got Nixon on a process crime. The Washington Post kept enough
pressure and publicity to convene a special prosecutor's investigation,
and then came the series of Nixon administration blunders. And
eventually the fatal one.

A process crime is what they got Clinton on. And Scooter Libby. And lots
of others.

A process crime is what they failed to get Reagan on, btw, since his
scandal policy apparently was "full and immediate disclosure."

The Watergate story was instigated and fed by a government official with
an agenda. He wanted the Pasha's Seat vacated by Hoover. Woodward and
Bernstein were the patsies he used. Well paid patsies, they got $500k
for their book, and a lifetime of praise for their journalistic heroism.

These competing narratives, the 1930s cub reporters slaying the corrupt
dragon of Downtown, and the reporters who were fed all their copy from
rival government officials...and the truth that lies somewhere in
between them...this is what journalism has always been about here in
these not-so United States.

You're thinking, in order to have the kind of journalism Frank Capra
promised you before you were born, that a newspaper must be completely
divorced from commercial concerns.

As you know, Bill Gaines at Mad Magazine has always refused advertising.
The cover price is the only source of revenue for the magazine. He did
this because he always strode to retain the ability to make fun of
ANYONE and ANYTHING and ANYWHERE.

You want your news media to be like Mad Magazine.

Well, you mention John Liebowitz a lot, so maybe you've found what
you're looking for.
Post by Bret Cahill
The real reason is a no brainer: Adams is _working for_ the legacy media.
How could you miss that easy lob?
There should be an opportunity online for a former reporter who could expose
the exchanged glances, "tactful" handling [censorship] of inconvenient
stories by clueless [naive about the media] reporters.
You're under the false impression that journalists are "objective." I've
known a few journalists, and I'm here to tell you: they ain't. But you
don't have to have actually met one to intuit that fact: they're human
beings who live and breath politics, for crying out loud.

News was much more informing when newspapers didn't pretend to be
objective; When newspapers declared their political leanings, sometimes
even in their names:

For example, the St. Louis Globe-Democrat was once the Missouri
Democrat. Pretty obvious, don't you think? It was the conservative
alternative to Pulitzer's St. Louis Post-Dispatch. The Globe died in
1986.

(Yes, Democrats used to be primarily a conservative party despite
Roosevelt, and especially SINCE Roosevelt. The Neoconservatives, all
began to jump ship during the Vietnam War, and the rest were sent to
reeducation camps).

It was the competition, the knock-down drag out competition between
Democrat papers and Republican papers, that actually, once in a while,
produced some truth there in their pages.

When the news media began to pretend to be objective, the truth was
lost, never to return.
Post by Bret Cahill
The really fun part would be when Hillary wants to discuss hiking taxes on
the rich. The legacy media sound the alarm like pocket gophers spotting a
hawk.
If Hillary Clinton is ever considered a serious candidate, the Democrats
will split apart just as they did during the Johnson administration.

In a country of 300 million, they'd actually give her the time of day?

Why? Because she can raise money and the IRS won't hassle her?
Post by Bret Cahill
"MAN YOUR BATTLE STATIONS! CODE ONE ALERT! HILLARY WANTS TO GET THE
POLITICAL DISCUSSION ON ECONOMIC ISSUES! Elizabeth, start gush hyping
abortion in Texas. Interview every fundy in entire state or Koch will stop
the funding! Ted, do something on gays. What? How in the hell would I know
what the gays' cause celebre is right now? That's _your_ job to keep up with
gay issues. Were you lying about being gay on your application? Now get out
there or we'll lose an order of magnitude more funding than your salery.
Alice, get on gun control. Go into a trailer park and find a trailer with a
confederate flag in the window. What? Hell yes it's legal for you to knock
on the door. Where did you go to journalism school?"
Koch Industries only has revenues of about $90 billion, and employs only
50,000 people.

That's tiny compared to the real power.

In addition, they can only persuade.

You're afraid of persuasion, of course. All Marxists always have been
and always will be fearful of persuasion in the marketplace of ideas.

"Thus Marxism protects itself against all unwelcome criticism. The enemy
is not refuted: enough to unmask him as a bourgeois. Marxism criticizes
the achievements of all those who think otherwise by representing them
as the venal servants of the bourgeoisie."

             --Ludwig Von Mises
               Socialism (1932)
--
Neolibertarian

"Global Warming: It ain't the heat, it's the stupidity."
Louie V Menard
2013-07-16 01:18:40 UTC
Permalink
An ultra-left LOSER. Like most socially misfit DemocRATs, Bret lives
alone in a one-room apartment:

Bret E. Cahill (56+)
649 Main St, Apt 226
Brawley, CA 92227

Bret tried to sue the gov't and got stomped on like an insect. Ever
since that crushing humiliation he has hated himself, everybody else,
and America.

BRET E. CAHILL, PETITIONER
v.
UNITED STATES DEPARTMENT OF LABOR, ET AL....
CONCLUSION
The petition for a writ of certiorari should be denied.
http://www.justice.gov/osg/briefs/1995/w951444w.txt

Note that when you reply to a Proven Liar you encourage them to
continue lying.

[][][][][][]
The DemocRATs Hall Of Shame asks "Why do you always LIE?"

[Courtesy of Buster Norris]

On Thu, 16 May 2013 06:42:27 -0700 (PDT), Bret Cahill
Re: I Just Paid for a Full Year At GoDaddy
LIAR!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

You don't have a website, you don't even have a job!!!!!!!!!!

Posted on behalf of:
The DemocRATs Hall of Shame!
Loading...