Thread: The Media

Originally Posted by xman

ALL sides should be presented free of bias in each report

If that were possible, I'd agree, but it isn't, so I don't.

I'd never have much faith in any single report on anything.

Edit> I don't think modern society will even tolerate objective news any more. I'll refer to my example of the BBC. They had a good world-wide reputation for being objective. But news presented that way sounds boring, pretentious or even cowardly. So they have buckled under the pressure and now make judgemental comments in news reports.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

If that were possible, I'd agree, but it isn't, so I don't.

Why isn't it possible to present both sides?

I believe that many reports on the BBC achieve this to some degree, you do hear the word 'however' quite frequently, which is a good thing.

I basically disagree with the idea that we need subjectivity in our news, people should get the facts.

If this sensationalism is to draw in higher viewing figures, then I would much sooner see less news. 24 hours news is a disease.

I think what bother's me is not what the news say, but what it does not say. Most Americans get their news from the television. TV News is now the professional wrestling of the journalism world.
The networks misinform the public about an issue and then they turn around and poll the same misinformed public on how they feel about that issue? Perhaps they should poll the people on their knowledge of the issue first and then poll them about how they feel. They will never do this because it would expose they fact that they are misinforming their viewers. Since when did news polls become relevant??? It's all about manipulating the public.

^ People are getting stupider and stupider all the time and if it's one thing I can't stand it's stupids.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

If that were possible, I'd agree, but it isn't, so I don't.

So we shouldn't strive. I mean, why wipe your ass if it's only gonna get sh!tty again, right?

Originally Posted by gregs656

Why isn't it possible to present both sides?

It isn't possible to guarantee you are getting both sides. So you should never assume it.

Better to have two reports from opposite viewpoints than one report of unknown origin.

Originally Posted by xman

So we shouldn't strive. I mean, why wipe your ass if it's only gonna get sh!tty again, right?

In context you are saying why shouldn't we trust what we are being told and hope it is impartial.

Unless you are saying the State should control the media to force it to be impartial. We all know where that would lead.

Don't put words in my mouth. I'm saying we all deserve better.

I have a responsibility to scrutinise what I hear and journalists have a responsibility to be impartial, or at least to try to be if you prefer. We can still look to differing reports because that's gonna happen, but when the news anchor acts like a pundit then it's not news any more, it's propaganda even if it comes from a private media source.

Originally Posted by Rajagra

It isn't possible to guarantee you are getting both sides. So you should never assume it.

I don't think that was my question, you said this was not possible 'ALL sides should be presented free of bias in each report'

Why is it not possible? You have to write discussion essays at 12 years old in school, presenting both sides of the argument. Why is it not possible for adults in a professional environment, with a vast amount of influence, to do the same.

Originally Posted by ChrisL

Please type more when you're able...
Chris L

I'll try. I'd like to, but theres alot there, like pages of stuff. Its hard b/c I don't want to be vague and need to look up or remember examples when I make a statement or supposition. Plus, this is stuff thats mostly been in my head where its kinda/not really organized, if you know what I mean.

I can type a bit more on corporate media ownership right now, its not quite so nebulous. The first I ever heard of it was one of those Sat night live cartoons, "TV funhouse". It was a cartoon that portrayed corps as octopus like things gobbling up media outlets and their various connections. I actually kept an eye out for the rerun of the cartoon, and thats an interesting story in itself--

The business of media: corporate ... - Google Books

The cartoon was pulled on the rerun, the reason being that "it didn't make it comedically." Odd reason to pull something from a SNL rerun. If all the skits and such that "didn't make it comedically" were removed from reruns of Sat night live the show would be down to about half an hour. I had heard what happened to the cartoon before, It was talked about on a documentary on PBS.

I found it interesting that Lorne Micheals lied (the producer of Sat Nite live), saying that he was responsible for the cartoons replacement, when he wasn't. I would think that he was a relatively powerful man in the industry, and the fact that he just rolled over and took responsibility when ordered to... well, it seems odd.

That book I linked to may be of interest to the people looking at this thread. I happened on it when I was looking for that SNL cartoon, and it seems to do a very good job explaining things. Immediately after the SNL cartoon I mentioned, it goes into the 1996 telecommunications act, perhaps the most important bill to effect American media (and as such the American peoples sources of information). There was 20 minutes of coverage for it over 9 months, and that wasn't about ownership... well, he explains it better then I can, just give it a look, there's alot there in the different sections.