It seems that recently...and by recently I mean as long as I can remember...the media has done nothing, but put so many spins on stories that it seems like they only want to sell the graphic and degrading part of it. An officer can save a family from a burning house, but if he forgets the dog he is a horrible human being.
I think the media knows that sex and violence sells so obviously they want this type of reaction. We are so shocked that we stay tuned out of spite to seeif they can top it.
I, for one, have stopped watching the news all together. Each day it is the same stuff. People arrested. People beaten. People killed. Terrorists this. Terrorists that. Yes, they are important, but where is the good news. And when it comes are they going to give it ten seconds of air time or just a small recap running across the bottom of the screen. All this while they show news from a foreign country of some man getting beaten by their police.
I have just have nothing, but disrespect for the media. Some good news every so often would help swallow the bad.
The reason I started this thread was to see what you guys thought. Maybe I am wrong? Who knows? Have fun.
-Handermier
To understand the media and what drives it you need to follow the funds.
The vast majority of the media (print and broadcast) is essentially an advertising delivery system.
A quality broadsheet newspaper will work on 75% or more revenue from advertising - these would be the most progressive papers like the Guardian, Observer and Independent in the UK. Advertisers will naturally wish their adverts to appear in an environment supportive to selling and exert a huge influence on media policy.
The media organisation itself will almost certainly be part of a large multi-national corporation which will be owned by very rich and powerful people who obviously have an interest in seeing that the climate that produces their wealth and power is sustained.
Then there is the further dependence on Government and other large businesses for their information, and in some cases their operating environment and terms/conditions/license fee.. These agencies are most able to control media output by various market forms of attack - withdrawal of advertising, costly libel actions, restricting newsworthy information etc. The citizen, on the other hand, has almost no control or sanction in this regard - legal redress for libel is financially prohibitive and 'watchdog' organisations are little more than token gestures.
Here in the UK it is only 3 years since the BBC was taught a lesson in real-politic by the Government, over it's coverage of Iraq. As a result of one interview by Andrew Gilligan (which was substantially correct at the time and almost completely accurate with hindsight), the reporter, Head of News, Chairman and Director General of the BBC were sacked/resigned.
If you calculate the sort of organisation and output that this combination of drivers is likely to produce you will find it much easier to understand the line taken by the huge majority of media organisations.
If you want to really examine this issue in detail then I would suggest you get hold of
'Manufacturing Consent' by Noam Chomsky as a starting point
Regards
Chris
Biker, in that the media delivers eyeballs to advertizers is, your analysis is good. But Chomsky is terrible.
The BBC has been pretty immorally accepting of Darfur, Zimbabwe, and increasingly Venezuela. They're full of anti-americanism, anti-capitalism; smart, non-responsible elitists frustrated at their own lack of material well being.
I hope the new media, like blogs, do more interviewing of mainstream media.
We are increasingly having to lie more and more to survive in our culture and we have started to look for the lies insead of looking for the truth. There is so much News-tainment out there. I wonder if we have to look to the public broadcasters for a more honest worldview...
| Handermier wrote: |
It seems that recently...and by recently I mean as long as I can remember...the media has done nothing, but put so many spins on stories that it seems like they only want to sell the graphic and degrading part of it. An officer can save a family from a burning house, but if he forgets the dog he is a horrible human being.
I think the media knows that sex and violence sells so obviously they want this type of reaction. We are so shocked that we stay tuned out of spite to seeif they can top it.
I, for one, have stopped watching the news all together. Each day it is the same stuff. People arrested. People beaten. People killed. Terrorists this. Terrorists that. Yes, they are important, but where is the good news. And when it comes are they going to give it ten seconds of air time or just a small recap running across the bottom of the screen. All this while they show news from a foreign country of some man getting beaten by their police.
I have just have nothing, but disrespect for the media. Some good news every so often would help swallow the bad.
The reason I started this thread was to see what you guys thought. Maybe I am wrong? Who knows? Have fun.
-Handermier |
think of it this way.
the news media is often owned by large, powerful individuals, they will only produce what they think is good for their interests.
for example, if one powerful owner of a large corporation owns a security company then they are going to post more security related threats in order to drive up their sales otherwise they are going to go out of business.
not only that but consider the effect it has on the people. they may portray moral panics as a way of controolling the people....
| TomGrey wrote: |
| Biker, in that the media delivers eyeballs to advertizers is, your analysis is good. But Chomsky is terrible. |
In what way is he terrible? A lot of what he says sounds obvious and even trite but I've read a lot of his work and found it generally to be properly researched, supported by appropriate references and sources and largely free from unsupported supposition, assumption and exrapolation. In short he brings an academic rigour to his work that is sadly lacking in many critiques of his work that I have read. I'll be interested to hear any genuine criticisms of his work as opposed to dislikes of his theses or objections to his themes.
| Quote: |
The BBC has been pretty immorally accepting of Darfur, Zimbabwe, and Chavez bid for more state controlincreasingly Venezuela. They're full of anti-americanism, anti-capitalism; smart, non-responsible elitists frustrated at their own lack of material well being. |
Hmm....I'd like some evidence to support those assertions please.
I did my own quick survey using the BBC website as source and a few simple measures, such as recent stories covered, recent stories about the US/Business/Capitalism, recent stories covering Sudan, Venezuala and Zimbabwe etc.
(In each case I have been non-selective - simply reporting the first stories I found and not adding or subtracting from the list of stories in any way).
Here's what I found:
a) Venezuala, Zimbabwe and Sudan (Darfur)
Today
AU fails to secure Somali force
Yesterday :
African snub to Sudan over Darfur
Darfur dominating Africa summit
Q&A: Sudan's Darfur conflict
Monday:
AU summit to tackle tough agenda (Darfur)
19th Jan
Country profile: Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)
Timeline: Zimbabwe (Zimbabwe)
10th Jan
Chavez bid for more state Control (Venezuela)
Chavez accelerates on path to socialism (Venezuela)
City of contrasts (Venezuela)
b)Anti-Americanism, anti-capitalism....
Last week of stories on the US :
Iraq warning from US commander
US child molester gets 152 years
Microsoft starts Vista hard sell
US wolves 'no longer endangered'
Bush ex-spokesman rebuts Libby
Bolivia route blockaded over oil
Hubble's main camera shuts down
Police to reunite for Grammy gig
Saudis name US ambassador
Body found in BA jet landing gear
US rejects Iran nuclear 'timeout'
BUSINESS
Delta gains bankruptcy financing
Icahn eyes seat on Motorola board
FEATURES
The envelope please ...
Civil war 'abyss' - Report urges US to shield Iraq's neighbours
Can Hillary Clinton win in 2008?
Democratic dilemma over Iraq
Other stories featuring the Americas:
Ex-reporter testifies in CIA case
Four dead in petrol station blast
Brazil raids target drugs gangs
Milan complete signing of Ronaldo
Emergency pill for Chilean girls
CSN and Tata fight for Corus
c) | Quote: |
| ..smart, non-responsible elitists frustrated at their own lack of material well being. |
Hmm..the only way I can approach this is by looking at BBC recruitment policy, (and here), news editorial and general reporting guidelines. audience feedback, current affairs and news commissioning, and target audiences
I am not defending the BBC particularly and I take a general position that all media news and current events are necessarily biased according to the target audience, financial underpinning, political or commercial obligations or requirements of the agency and national expectations and requirements. I do not, however, accept unreferenced and un-supported blanket criticism of such media since it is very easy to make charges of bias but to be credible there must be some supporting evidence.Media is unreliable. They report the news, but add a bias to it (be it conservative or liberal) that completely distorts the picture. They manipulate and misrepresent facts, sometimes making up "facts" all by themselves. They are untrustworthy.
Search multiple sources of news for the overall picture.
| Soulfire wrote: |
Media is unreliable. They report the news, but add a bias to it (be it conservative or liberal) that completely distorts the picture. They manipulate and misrepresent facts, sometimes making up "facts" all by themselves. They are untrustworthy.
Search multiple sources of news for the overall picture. |
I accept that, but I will not accept that | Quote: |
| The BBC .....They're full of anti-americanism, anti-capitalism; smart, non-responsible elitists frustrated at their own lack of material well being. |
unless there is at least a hint of evidence to back it up. It is too easy to blame the media as a lazy way out of doing your own work (not *you* - I mean *one*). As a reader of Chomsky I am probably more critical of media generally than most, but it must be supported by evidence otherwise charges of bias are meaningless and the media remains unscathed.
I agree about sources - read as many as you are comfortable with. I normally read at least 3 sources on anything important - BBC as a baseline, Washington Post or NY Times as a right-barrier and Socialist Worker, Z-Net commentary or (and this will be surprising to many) Christian Science Monitor - as a balance on the socialist side. I normally end up agreeing more with the latter than the former, being a lefty myself, but you should at least know what the otherside is saying if you wish to make intelligent debate with them 
ChrisWell, thing is that you gotta question everything you hear. I mean if the news guy says "Terrible Accident", then "terrible" is just his opinion. Thats the world today. The TV makes peoples opinions for them. Its just plain stuid to base ones opinion on TV, or any other media in fact. And the worst thing is that TV rarly shows the full picture. When my dad found out about the WoW suicides he was all like "See, I told you that the computer is evil!", but he didnt take into account that WoW has 7-8 million players, and not even 10 of them commited suicide. How many people die in car accidents? See, cars are therefor evil! I can also blame spoons and forks for making me fat! Yeah, people dont get to or more often dont want to see the bigger picture. And they forget about proportions! Stuff like that women cause less accidents, but there are (or were some 5-10 years ago) less woman drivers then male drivers, male drivers also drive more often and usually are more self confident because cars are a "man thing".
I think the media is terrible. Their main concern is not to get information out to you and I but to get ratings. All they care about is their ratings. The will twist every story in order to have the more amazing story. Both sides of the political spectrum do it as well. I know some people would like to believe that Fox News is evil.... Well CNN isn't the greatest source either.
