 |
Bible-Discussion.com
Private Bible Studies and Christian Fellowship Available - Ask Nobby
|
|
|
| Author |
Message |
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
 Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:00 am Post subject: Media distracting the electorate... |
 |
|
One major issue in democracy is how the electorate gets its information. For a democracy to properly function, the voters must be properly informed.
For that reason, it's particularly bad when the news media wastes airtime on complete trivialities as if they were important. The vast majority of the time, the media (and it doesn't matter which network we're talking about, they're pretty much all the same) latches on to some gossip story and runs with it instead of giving the viewers proper news.
A few weeks ago it was Anna Nicole Smith's death and the identity of her baby's father. A few days ago it was how prince William broke up with his girlfriend. Now the major story is how Alec Baldwin yelled at his daughter.
If it weren't such an important issue, it would be comical. |
|
| Back to top |
|
 |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 4:13 am Post subject: |
|
|
yep yep...
they're also very good at giving "favorable" airplay to one issue (or one side of an issue) or in the word choice in relating stories....words have meaning (both connotation and denotation)...notice the different words used to describe Obama or Clinton compared to Romney or Guiliani...(for example)...
You worry about Government propoganda....I feel we're much more affected by "shadow government" propoganda... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:08 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Whoever thought it was a good idea to mix money with news made a really big mistake... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 1:32 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: | | Whoever thought it was a good idea to mix money with news made a really big mistake... |
Interesting...but what's the solution? A Free Press also has to earn revenue by sales of product or advertising....You want the Government to put out the news? I do, but I also want the "Free Press" out there too...
I'd say the biggest issue is that (like the early 1900s) we have a "yellow journalism" streak in the Press...everyone is using their outlet for editorializing and sensationalism...you have to really pay attention to separate the "facts" from the OpEd...even down to the choice of photos.... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 2:34 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | | P1234567890 wrote: | | Whoever thought it was a good idea to mix money with news made a really big mistake... |
Interesting...but what's the solution? A Free Press also has to earn revenue by sales of product or advertising....You want the Government to put out the news? I do, but I also want the "Free Press" out there too...
I'd say the biggest issue is that (like the early 1900s) we have a "yellow journalism" streak in the Press...everyone is using their outlet for editorializing and sensationalism...you have to really pay attention to separate the "facts" from the OpEd...even down to the choice of photos.... |
Public Television seems to be a good solution. Look at NPR and PBS in America. They are not commercial and they are not beholden to advertisers, and they are *by far* the best news sources in the entire country. In my opinion, they are considerably better than even the BBC. Ironically, NPR and PBS are like the only 'free press' left in America. ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN, and FOX certainly are not free.
Part of the problem is that the general public is outrageously fickle and shallow, so O.J. and Anna Nicole stories get lots of air time because the market dictates that they should.
In that sense, choosing which stories to air is a little like telling your kids what to eat: someone who knows better should be making the decisions. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
45degreeN
King Kong
Joined: 02 Aug 2005
Posts: 2416
Location: Salem Oregon
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 5:46 pm Post subject: |
|
|
The cutting edge seem to me the entrance of Roone Arledge into the main newsroom when he left the sports bureau at ABC. Prior to that time all the channels actually lost money on their journalism broadcasts. When Arledge took over ABC news he made a profit for them but turned the news into entertainment instead of journalism. Needless to say all the other commercial outlets followed shortly thereafter, just to stay even with them.
The airwaves belong to the public (not the government) and each channel is required to do a service to the public in exchange for that privilege. We have the right to have our say regarding that service and we should use it. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:02 pm Post subject: |
|
|
true about PBS and NPR, but even they do a poor job of "fair and balanced" news reporting...again, editorial selectivity of topic and interview subjects....
Generally speaking, academics represent "liberal" schools of thought...that voice predominates on NPR and PBS...I've seen some great journalism on both sides, but I've also seen outright advocacy...
as for news becoming edutainment, concur wholeheartedly....and as for "public service", that has become more and more eroded even during my lifetime... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Tue Apr 24, 2007 6:22 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | true about PBS and NPR, but even they do a poor job of "fair and balanced" news reporting...again, editorial selectivity of topic and interview subjects....
|
This is a VERY interesting topic in and of itself... People always criticize PBS and NPR for being 'too liberal'. I challenge this assertion.
I'm about to make a bold assertion, but hear out my entire argument before you think about disagreeing with me. My bold assertion is that you don't want your news to be "fair and balanced". This may seem like a stupid thing to say, but it's not. You actually want your news to be biased AGAINST the current government in power (regardless of who is in power).
The reason for this is that the news media is the so-called 'fourth estate'. It is their job to dig up as much dirt and to be as critical of the government as is reasonable. They're supposed to be questioning the government ALL THE TIME; that's their role. If they're fair and balanced, then the general public will be getting an even-keeled impression of the government. We don't want that; we want the public to have a slightly bad impression of the government, even if the government is performing satisfactorily.... This creates tension that keeps the government honest.
| Pondering wrote: |
Generally speaking, academics represent "liberal" schools of thought...that voice predominates on NPR and PBS...
|
It's all relative. Being American, you have a totally whacked-out view of what is 'left' and what is 'right'. For example, in America Clinton was considered a left-wing president, but the rest of the world (and probably any reasonable political scientist you talk to) would classify him as right-wing.
Although you probably can't see it because you're on the inside looking out, the American political spectrum is right-shifted compared to that in any other civilized country. Barring any language difficulties, if you watched a 'liberal' station in, say, Sweden or France, you'd probably be personally insulted by many of the things they say and think they were communists!
In most countries, PBS and NPR would be considered to be more or less center of the spectrum.
| Pondering wrote: |
I've seen some great journalism on both sides, but I've also seen outright advocacy... |
What do you mean by both sides? Do you mean FOX News? I don't think I've ever heard anyone accuse FOX News of producing any great journalism before! |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Wed Apr 25, 2007 10:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
What do you mean by both sides? Do you mean FOX News? I don't think I've ever heard anyone accuse FOX News of producing any great journalism before! |
No, I mean stories on PBS and NPR...Frontline did a great "Road to War" series on Iraq that was intriguing but factual...a "warts and all" story that really is "must see TV".
I generally agree with your point about the media being the Fourth Estate...but I also think that the media has a responsibility to be Honest...and recently, the OpEd page has been replaced by the paper (or station) in total...that's not good.
For example...military bloggers (even those in Iraq) were outraged by Sen Reid's comments...but that isn't covered. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
RevJP
Moderator
Joined: 18 Apr 2003
Posts: 6817
Location: USA
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 5:45 am Post subject: |
|
|
The only 'fair and balanced' news reporting is CSPAN and CSPAN2, but that only deals with the operation of the representative segment of our government, and not too many people can sit and watch it for hours to determine what is going on and what is not...
If anyone is interested in determining what agency is 'fair and balanced' do an experiment:
Watch CSPAN for a day, listen to what is being said, who says it, what they actually say, and then look at the news reports that evening or the next day and see what the news agencies tell you what happened. You would be surprised (or maybe you wouldn't) at how different the 'news' is from the reality in every news agency (print, radio, and TV).
I glance over the newspaper in our area (widely recognized as a 'liberal' rag) and marvel at how many times the reporting uses the word 'tout' whenever discussing what any particular republican said about something, particularly in support of pet programs or the war effort or some such. I'm just amazed at how often the President or republican Senator or Representative, or even a republican state representative 'touts' something rather than just says something... |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| RevJP wrote: |
I glance over the newspaper in our area (widely recognized as a 'liberal' rag) and marvel at how many times the reporting uses the word 'tout' whenever discussing what any particular republican said about something, particularly in support of pet programs or the war effort or some such. I'm just amazed at how often the President or republican Senator or Representative, or even a republican state representative 'touts' something rather than just says something... |
I agree that the word 'tout' has negative connotations and that this constitutes a biased criticism of the person being described, but this is what you want!
You want the media to be criticizing all of the evil politicians out there. That's their job!
Now, if they DON'T do it for Democrats as well, then I agree that there's a problem. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 7:19 am Post subject: |
|
|
| P1234567890 wrote: |
Now, if they DON'T do it for Democrats as well, then I agree that there's a problem. |
To quote the Apollo 14 Astronauts..."Houston, we have a problem."
Really start to use some critical analysis (particularly word choice and selection of speakers) and you'd be amazed...
Now P#s, I'd be with you in your argument if the media was acting "in the public interest"....but they're not...largely, they act "in the interest" of a group, movement, or alternative political view....that's propoganda. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:08 am Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: |
Now P#s, I'd be with you in your argument if the media was acting "in the public interest"....but they're not...largely, they act "in the interest" of a group, movement, or alternative political view....that's propoganda. |
I agree, which is why I totally condemn NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, and FOX. They're all evil, and they're hurting America A LOT.
As far as I can tell, the only major news outlets in your country which are even remotely working in the public interest are PBS and NPR. C-SPAN is somewhat different; it's basically a neutral information resource.
The job of the news media (as you correctly point out) is to act in the public interest. This means that they need to look at the big picture and do what's good for America as a whole.
But when was the last time that any of the 5 major news stations did this? For that matter, when was the last time that any major political party did this.
When you look at World War II and how everyone worked together for the greater good, it really brings shame to the people in charge today. For example, look at the war in North Africa. The British, French, and Americans all worked together as a cohesive unit without any infighting or pettiness.
By contrast, the occupation of Iraq has been a story of major turf wars between the CIA, the State Dept., and the Pentagon. It's humiliating! The government and its organizational structure has fallen very far since WWII.
You guys really need someone to take over and do what's in the best interests of America as a whole. |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
Pondering
Lion King
Joined: 15 Sep 2005
Posts: 1273
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 9:22 am Post subject: |
|
|
I accept your nomination as Benevolent Dictator 
Everyone else, just write-in "Pondering" on your ballots  |
|
| Back to top |
|
|
P1234567890
Emperor of the Universe
Joined: 11 Mar 2006
Posts: 6772
Location: Toronto, Canada
|
| Posted: Thu Apr 26, 2007 6:59 pm Post subject: |
|
|
| Pondering wrote: | I accept your nomination as Benevolent Dictator
Everyone else, just write-in "Pondering" on your ballots |
I'm not voting for you until you
a) Extend the right to vote to Canadians, and
b) Promise to do something about Global Warming!
|
|
| Back to top |
|
|
|
|
FAQ 
Search 
Make a Donation 
Usergroups 
Contact
Register
Submit Articles 
Log in to check your private messages 
