Many/Most people think that the main-stream media have either a liberal or conservative bent. But the truth is that they really have a 'stupid' orientation. They only consider the number of eyeballs that will watch whatever junk they can dream up.
In order to keep putting horrible tabloid crap on the air, though, the television networks have had to compromise on some things. It certainly doesn't bother them that they have abandoned all pretense of journalism. No, that's not it. The compromise that they had to make was abandoning the notion that there is such a thing as objective truth.
Without objective truth, the networks are free. Free at last. Free to turn every event into:
"An Animal House Food Fight". Think of the benefits for them. Since a story can never be proven true or false, a story can ALWAYS be revived. A story NEVER dies. So, from now until forever, someone can always come up with a new "birth certificate" proving that Obama was actually born in Kenya, Indonesia, or Neptune.
And every story can be fair and balanced, to wit: "Some feel that this proves that Obama is not really an American, and shouldn't be President. Others question the validity of this birth certificate. Let's discuss how an impeachment process would proceed with Tony Blankley..."
Just as the networks could always keep the Swiftboat story going, by interviewing a different person "claiming" to have heard John Kerry telling someone how much he wanted to kiss Ho Chi Minh.
"If it bleeds, it leads" used to be the motto of local television. But everyone knows it now, and local stations now often try to differentiate themselves with other ideas (usually personality-based drivel).
The networks always knew that they HAD to do a certain amount of this. That's why a celebrity death is perfect for ratings. There's plenty of old footage to show, and things to say about him/her (regardless of the celeb's actual significance).
But that doesn't happen often enough. The networks needed something more. They tried endlessly discussing missing blonds - it worked for a little while but people got bored with it, and they didn't have the nerve to MAKE UP evidence.
But right-wing talk radio LOVES making up evidence. Eureka! Now, television can start the story in a low-key professional-sounding sort of way (He said, she said); but the right wing nuts provide the continuing NON-evidence to keep the story going, and, hence ratings up.
So, one day Obama's HCR is Socialist; the next day he is Fascist, maybe some days Obama is a Nazi.
Then, another day Obama is secretly trying to indoctrinate our school children. When the text of the speech is released, the story transmogrifies into: the right-wing PREVENTED Obama from secretly trying to indoctrinate our children. Tomorrow, the inside story of how they foiled the plan?
This is a kind of fairness doctrine run amok. Any charge (no matter how idiotic) is treated as if it came from Moses, Gandhi and MLK put together. "After all, we're just trying to hear both sides". And a little halo appears above their pathetic heads.
In the absence of objective truth, the networks can play this game ad nauseum.
Now it is true that during the W administration, a few outlandish Lefty 9/11 theories were run up the flagpole. And remember the theory that crack was introduced into the ghettos by the government?
But these stories didn't last, I think, because (1) Democrats are more reality-based, and (2) networks are more afraid of the right than they are of the left.
As further proof of the 'stupid' thesis, notice that when people started dying in Iraq and New Orleans, the networks played it (pretty) straight. They didn't need anything made up to get ratings when Abu Ghraib came along. There were pictures, and disgusting filthy behavior! Perfect! Mark Sanford's self destruction was covered in loving detail -- pictures AND sound were available. When the networks don't have to pull out the stupid card, they try to play it straight.
But when ratings are in jeopardy, MSM stupidity must be achieved, at any cost!
Anyway, that's my thesis. What (if anything) can/should we do about it?