Rick Sanchez defended CNN's coverage. And, to a certain extent, he's right. CNN actually covered this story that should have been "Breaking News" every hour on all of the 24-hour news channels. But, perhaps, it's really not all that ironic at all.
What do you remember about CNN when it reads off tweets on the air? Do they ever analyze the information that is coming in from "viewers" or do they simply pass over the messages and use them as a segue into the next news segment on pop culture in America?
CNN didn't fail because it failed to cover the story of Iran or even Twitter. It has failed like the other MSM news organizations because it hasn't produced the same kind of analysis that smart observers (i.e. independent bloggers) are producing as they pour through the information that is escaping Iran.
It and other organizations fail because the organizations use a model that relies on pundits and so-called experts and doesn't include much reporting from countries outside the U.S. at all. This model cannot compete with the visceral experience that the Twitter model produces and often lacks entirely the perspective of the culture of people which are being impacted by the stories which are unfolding.
With the Iranian government cracking down on foreign journalists and refusing to renew visas or limiting what news bureaus can report, one might think news organizations would jump on board this media revolution and take part in the democratization of media.
But, the democratization of media threatens the job security and the self-image of all in the American press. It is something they will, except for a few shows on MSM channels, ignore.
The blogging revolution was born because a news media in America acted like lapdogs during the Bush Administration. They cheerleaded as the case for an illegal and inhumane war in Iraq was made by the Bush Administration and up until Bush's last year in office they did very little to question his horrible policies and ideas which were a detriment to all of humanity.
The birth of new media has given the Iranians the ability to continue their mobilization in Iran. It has made it possible for an American public to stay interested in the world outside of America's borders.
People are noticing the failure of the main news organizations in America and they are choosing to get their information from blogs and Internet news organizations instead of the corporate news media establishment they used to trust in.
No, some could argue that it is more truthful. More egalitarian. Now more than ever (and rightfully so), anyone and everyone can influence the public discourse worldwide and have an impact on what people know just by choosing to compile news information as it flows out of Iran and post it somewhere online.
Years from now, we may look back and say this was the turning point---when the dominance of corporate news was successfully and rightfully subverted by an egalitarian media, a media that could be used by anybody that could get to a computer and type, when Iranians showed Americans how we too can use technology to revitalize and energize support for change in our system of government.
We may weep for those pundits who work within the Big Five news media corporations and whose downfall may be inevitable now that people have witnessed the power of Twitter and the use of public proxies to get YouTube video and Facebook reports to the world on what's happening in Iran.
On second thought, why weep? They deserve what's coming to them.
(Note: You can view every article as one long page if you sign up as an Advocate Member, or higher).
