Thread: The Media

I forget who said it, but this is what they said, "Freedom of the press belongs to those who own the presses."

And heres another one. "You can always find the truth through a comparison of the lies." D. Webster

A truly unbiased media organisation with no agenda other than to report the facts is IMO impossible for all the reasons people have listed: personalities, group think, political agendas, control, and money. Which is why most of us probably take our news with a healthy dollop of skepticism.

BUT, there is nonetheless a range which news organisations fall into. Some are without doubt trying to retain a modicum of responsible reporting, and others seem to place agenda over truth.

We all pick the ones that fit our preferences. But surely it's not just about being fed by a single source? Anyone who's remotely interested in having a balanced opinion should be seeking out multiple sources, especially the ones which challenge our preferred political and social beliefs.

In the UK I forcve myself to read the Telegraph (a right-leaning broadsheet) because much that I cannot stand its stance, it provides a counter-balance to a lot of the claptrap I read in the left-leaning press like the Guardian.

If we align ourself to a single source, then we become part of that groupthink process and we're destined to unthinkingly repeat the sort of rubbish we're fed.

(That said, there are limits... I simply cannot bring myself to read that rag The Daily Mail!)

Originally Posted by nun2sharp

When I was a kid most of the media was small companies and usually family owned, they had a reputation in the community to protect. Now the media is owned by nameless/faceless corporations and those who pull the strings within those corporations and have no loyalties to anyone but themselves.They are there to make money and peddle influence, it has been so long since I have seen anything that was objective I probably would not know what it was when I saw it. I think todays media is run by the few for the sake of the few. I think the onslaught of partisan polotics in the media simply divides the public making them more easily manipulated, divided they are conquered and led in any direction the leaders want, while the sheep are too busy bickering and pointing fingers amongst themselves as to whose fault it is that they are being led to slaughter.

I agree with this. The media is owned by just a few very large corporations that usually have joint holdings. They have a great deal of influence about what is released. I remember the owners/managers of affiliate clearchannel stations were pressured into playing what were basically infomercials about that whole Kerry swiftboat thing, and treating them like they were valid, proven news. I also remember, quite a while back, I turned on the news and Dan Rather made a statement like "Bill Gates is being punished by Washington politicians for not playing ball!" This was in the summary at the beginning of the 5:00 news. I noticed it because it wasn't even remotely unbiased. The really odd thing was that I turned to a different news channel at 5:30, and the exact phrase was read by another anchorman, Brokow, I think. I was pretty suprised by that.

I think the whole divide and conquer part is true as well. People have allowed themselves to become radicalized. They see their own countrymen as the enemy and take in information from certain commentators, politicians, ect as gospel without any questions begin asked. The fewer the questions, the more the people in power can get away with.

There are about 50 other things I could list here, but I'm really tired of typing right now.

Originally Posted by majurey

In the UK I forcve myself to read the Telegraph (a right-leaning broadsheet) because much that I cannot stand its stance, it provides a counter-balance to a lot of the claptrap I read in the left-leaning press like the Guardian.

If we align ourself to a single source, then we become part of that groupthink process and we're destined to unthinkingly repeat the sort of rubbish we're fed.

(That said, there are limits... I simply cannot bring myself to read that rag The Daily Mail!)

We got the Torygraph for years for much the same reason, it was a decent paper. I think it's got worse recently. I don't think any of my family leans to the right politically.

Now, the thing I hate about the Daily Fail is they only ever write one story. They could be writing about the Rubik's Cube and some how twist it round and write more half truths and lies about immigration.

Originally Posted by gregs656

I guess the BBC are relatively unbiased

I think they are less objective than they used to be. Normally on the BBC news they make judgemental statements, rather than simply reporting facts. Even if you think those statements are valid, I think I would prefer pure objectivity.

In general though, I think the whole point of freedom of the press is that you should get extreme and biased reporting, and by listening to the different viewpoints you pick out the facts and can make a judgement on what is the truth. Of course, information overload makes that difficult.

Originally Posted by majurey

If we align ourself to a single source, then we become part of that groupthink process and we're destined to unthinkingly repeat the sort of rubbish we're fed.

Well, here in the UK we are blessed with such a diverse range of newspapers that some of them don't contain any news at all. (Unless you count front page headlines about Big Brother as news.)

I must confess, I don't bother with newspapers at all now, or even TV news. At least on the Internet you make choices what to read and can dig for more info when something captures your interest.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

In general though, I think the whole point of freedom of the press is that you should get extreme and biased reporting, and by listening to the different viewpoints you pick out the facts and can make a judgement on what is the truth. Of course, information overload makes that difficult.

That is not 'the whole point' of freedom of the press at all. Freedom of the press is a measure of repercussions, monopoly of the media, censorship, independence of the media and any difficulties that face foreign reporters.

It does not mean that we *should* get media full of bias, half truths and sensationalism, it simply means that this *can* happen.

Interestingly enough, whilst we have a relatively free press, it's not the most free by a long way.

What I mean is that having biased reports is a bit like having lawyers representing prosecution and defence in a trial. Both are 100% biased, but that is good because it should ensure both sides of the case are presented.

Originally Posted by Pete_S

I agree with this. The media is owned by just a few very large corporations that usually have joint holdings. They have a great deal of influence about what is released. I remember the owners/managers of affiliate clearchannel stations were pressured into playing what were basically infomercials about that whole Kerry swiftboat thing, and treating them like they were valid, proven news. I also remember, quite a while back, I turned on the news and Dan Rather made a statement like "Bill Gates is being punished by Washington politicians for not playing ball!" This was in the summary at the beginning of the 5:00 news. I noticed it because it wasn't even remotely unbiased. The really odd thing was that I turned to a different news channel at 5:30, and the exact phrase was read by another anchorman, Brokow, I think. I was pretty suprised by that.

I think the whole divide and conquer part is true as well. People have allowed themselves to become radicalized. They see their own countrymen as the enemy and take in information from certain commentators, politicians, ect as gospel without any questions begin asked. The fewer the questions, the more the people in power can get away with.

There are about 50 other things I could list here, but I'm really tired of typing right now.

Please type more when you're able, Pete. I've appreciated what you've written here and I agree with it. I stopped being partisan and loyal to one particular political party years ago. The divide and conquer approach was tested to be effective by the Romans and has proved so ever since.

To me, blindly and "proudly" aligning oneself with a single party and spending energy pointing at the misdeeds and foibles of the opposing party is akin to a pigeon looking downward and pecking at crumbs. Only, the crumbs are being strewn about by a hawk perched above. The pigeons focused only on the crumbs and fighting amongst themselves for this crumb or that never even see the hawk coming.

Chris L

Originally Posted by Rajagra

What I mean is that having biased reports is a bit like having lawyers representing prosecution and defence in a trial. Both are 100% biased, but that is good because it should ensure both sides of the case are presented.

Absolutely WRONG! Being a journalist is like being a judge NOT a lawyer. ALL sides should be presented free of bias in each report so that the jury (that's us) can deliberate on the information in an informed way.

Unfortunately though, consent is manufactured, fear is instilled. It shouldn't be this way, but that's what happens when your media is all private corporations. They're all striving to out sensationalize each other. Tax the private media to fund public media and things will balance out a little better. There'll still be Fox, but fewer people who consider it news.

Originally Posted by xman

Absolutely WRONG! Being a journalist is like being a judge NOT a lawyer. ALL sides should be presented free of bias in each report so that the jury (that's us) can deliberate on the information in an informed way.

Unfortunately though, consent is manufactured, fear is instilled. It shouldn't be this way, but that's what happens when your media is all private corporations. They're all striving to out sensationalize each other. Tax the private media to fund public media and things will balance out a little better. There'll still be Fox, but fewer people who consider it news.

X, I totally agree with your first paragraph, it is the second that would instill fear in me. What bureaucrat am I to trust under what kind of administration to give me "fair and balanced" information. Lets face it, although governments were instituted among men for the general welfare of the people, they have the ungodly tendency to serve themselves.