3 ms·
No, didn't miss the point - just didn't agree. Pre 9/11, we didn't have a plethora of "risk" experts telling us what to do. Most people listened to news - good,
by RougeFemme 13y ago
No, didn't miss the point - just didn't agree. Pre 9/11, we didn't have a plethora of "risk" experts telling us what to do. Most people listened to news - good, bad, or indifferent - parsed it for themselves and acted accordingly - not according to what the seldom-heard-from experts said.
- jessaustin 13y agoHow old are you? How long ago did you start watching the news? Because your rosy description of news media in times past does not accord with my recollection. Keep in mind that CNN started in 1980, and has always been a parade of blustery talking heads, in between the on-scene disaster reports. A particularly vivid memory of "expert" opinion (of risks to children), much hyped in the media, later debunked: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse#Investigations_2 http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Satanic_ritual_abuse#Investigat... Earlier in the last century "yellow journalism" featured the same sort of media output, but the reason that term fell out of use was not because Hearst died but because all journalism changed to that color. I mean, how was our war with Iraq different from our war with Spain? It's tempting to see 9/11 as some sort of watershed, especially if it had a personal impact. In fact, it was just a bit more of the same. What the "experts" are telling us now, is also that.