In a comment over at LibsAT, I commended a recent Newsweek article within the context of the "MSM" coverage of Iraqi politics. And was brought up short by co-blogger Haggai, who noted "MSM" made him a bit uncomfortable, given its association with wingnut paranoia.

I take the objection seriously. It's somewhat like those perennial favorites, freedom, democracy, opportunity and compassion. "MSM" has been hijacked by the war-blogging and Bushite right, and it's not clear how/whether we can rehabilitate it.

If my memory serves, the expression started off fairly neutral in partisan terms. Criticism of what was passing for political news and analysis by the leading news organizations and their associated punditry certainly wasn't confined to the right hemisphere of blogdom. True, there was even then the subtext of the "liberal media bias," but there was a counterbalancing "vicious right-wing conspiracy." Critiques of the structural inadequacies of the MSM, to which in part the blogosphere was a noisy response, were shared across the political spectrum.

Even now, some of the best critiques continue to come from a diverse collection of endangered species, ranging from centrists to moderate progressives and farther points left, whether the Howler or Campaign Desk. But now the triumphantalist right -- led by the Hewitts, Powerlines and Instys -- has hijacked both "year of the blog" and its enemy, the MSM, turning the label into a self-referential meme. [BTW -- Jay Rosen's series of takes on the Eason debacle -- together with his AfterMatters and comment threads on the posts -- are very much worth reading for a broader perspective on the changing rule sets for journalism and the press in an age of instant communication].

So what's an author to do? If you want a value-neutral short-hand reference for that collection of media organizations that used to be known as MSM?

Rosen has done a good deal of thinking on the subject, but has yet to hit on a result I find compelling. For example, for a time a common alternative was the "legacy media" tag, with its embedded presumption of the inevitable outcome of a battle-to-the-death between "new" vs "old." It may be a useful (though biased) way of conducting a debate about the future of journalism, but too narrowly cast and too value-judgment-rich to be a neutral label. So that's no good.

As a public service to discourse, I think we need to devise and actively disseminate another acronym. My options so far are CNOs -- commercial news organizations; and MCM -- mass commercial media. Neither is exactly catchy and each has its limitations. So I'm wide open to suggestions.

But I need something that's max 4 letters. One must admit the newest competitor to "MSM" is equal-opportunity --note it targets those incidious "Lefto-Conservative" types. But I get lost in Ss & Ms in SCLCMMSMM. [hat tip prak]

[UPDATE 10-28-04] by nadezhda

Apparently Mr Stewart hit several nerves in a portion of the body politic. Via Jeff Jarvis (who's got gobs of goodies this week -- see also his Michael Powell/Howard Stern coverage):

10-25-04 Exploding TV

: By the latest count, the Jon Stewart CNN segment has had more than 1.4 million views on iFilm -- not to mention all the BitTorrent distribution. Welcome to the future of media: A distributed network is more powerful than a centralized network. And the people you once called viewers are your best marketers (if you have anything worth marketing).

: Just noticed that iFilm calls this all viral video. Good title. [BTW, the viral video link also includes iFilm's segments of the Bush one-fingered salute and Eminem's Mosh, among other "crazy stunts, funny ads, dumb blondes, and gross clips"; ed.]
[...]
: Here's where you can get the latest counts on iFilm's clip: It's over 1.5 million now. [10-28 update, over 2 million, and again, not counting BitTorrent; ed]

---

And here's a more analytical take on the Stewart/CNN confrontation that captures my viewpoint of what the fuss was all about, from Andrew Cline of Rhetorica, who's become a daily read. This goes a long way towards explaining why I thought it wouldn't have made sense for Stewart to ask Kerry "hard" questions in that format. Stewart would just be "playing" at tough journalist, goofing on the media. If Stewart tried to have a meaningful exchange about an issue with Kerry, they'd have to abandon the Daily Show format. That's because the structure of the interview and news shows, which Stewart is lampooning, prevents anything "tough" other than "gotcha."

The Daily Show is not about politics. It's about media. It is 30 minutes of satire about what it is the news media do day after day and how it sometimes hurts us. There is much humor to be found in that because humor is often a defense mechanism--a way to live with circumstances we'd rather were different.

   more »

The selection of political leaders by popular vote may be critical for the sustained legitimacy of the governing class. It doesn't necessarily follow, however, that the outcomes of the election process reflect the true preferences of the public, if surveys of voter attitudes and behavior in the US are any guide.

In "The Unpolitical Animal" (The New Yorker,Aug 30, 2004), Louis Menand offers a delightful, and somewhat scary, overview of political science literature on decision-making by American voters.

Seventy per cent of Americans cannot name their senators or their congressman. Forty-nine per cent believe that the President has the power to suspend the Constitution. Only about thirty per cent name an issue when they explain why they voted the way they did, and only a fifth hold consistent opinions on issues over time. Rephrasing poll questions reveals that many people don’t understand the issues that they have just offered an opinion on. According to polls conducted in 1987 and 1989, for example, between twenty and twenty-five per cent of the public thinks that too little is being spent on welfare, and between sixty-three and sixty-five per cent feels that too little is being spent on assistance to the poor.

   more »