Separate names with a comma.
Discussion in 'Politics, Religion, Social Issues' started by zimv20, Apr 28, 2007.
One of the biggest mistakes of our media system is the misapplication of the cable news networks. A 24 hour news channel had the potential to cover not only the headlines for the day, but the vast amount of news stories the world over. Instead, we get the regurgitation of the same headlines over and over, debated, analyzed and packaged for entertainment purposes. It's sickening.
I would love to see a news network schedule programming devoted to regions and interests much like a newspaper does. For example: have an hour each for the top European, Asian, Australian, African, etc. news stories and have an hour each for sports, politics, business, entertainment, etc. For the amount of resources and talented journalists this nation has, we instead decided to focus on talking points and sound bites. It's a shameful development of affairs for this country.
A couple of key points in his thesis, IMO:
"To the extent that it was ignored in the United States, it wasn't because the report was false. It was because it was complicated and murky and because it required a lot of time and reporting to get to the bottom of it."
"I know some of the reasons why investigative reporting is on the decline. To begin with, investigations take time and money. A producer from "60 Minutes," watching my team's work on another voter purge list, said: "My God! You'd have to make hundreds of calls to make this case." In America's cash-short, instant-deadline world, there's not much room for that."
On the first point, one problem for the TV folks is that of making a complex subject fit into the time constraints, so as not to put the audience to sleep. Political skullduggery of this sort is about like economic issues: The Simpsons are more fun.
On the second, timeliness is always a problem in a society for which "ancient history" is anything older than a week or two back.
Then you have the quality of the work force. Good help is hard to find. For instance, the NYT went in-depth over the Duke athlete affair. Convicted those kids; strongly supported the DA at every opportunity. Oops! But there's a reason I view a high percentage of the media types as mediahcrities.
You don't dig deep when the corporations that directly and indirectly own the media threaten to pull their advertising and make a big stink if you make waves.
And......American Idol, Football and Entertainment Tonight are much more
important viewing for Joe SixPack.
Only now with newsworthy scandals exposed by the Democratic majority in Congress are we beginning to see some limited coverage of the dirty side
of it all.
Do we? I gave up watching cable news, mostly because I got sick of trying to suffer through two partisan hacks screaming past one another over some obscure and irrelevant news tidbit. Up next hour: two more morons screaming about the same thing!
Headline News used to allow you to skip these nonsense "infotainment" shows, but now we have Glenn Beck.
I think we're saying the same thing, so I'm not sure about your question. One thing that comes to mind is the last few weeks on MSNBC: Don Imus all day for a week, Virgina Tech all day for a week, and now the debates.
Don't forget about Nancy Grace.
Sorry for any confusion. The word "headlines" threw me off, as though you were saying they kept cycling through the top stories; they don't. They dote on two or three items of useless crap for a week at a time, discussing it to death and getting everyone excited about nothing.
Meanwhile, Rome burns.
Again- if I hear anyone mention the term "liberal media" ever again, I'll puke in their shoes.
leekohler, would you disagree with the view that the editorial policies of the NYT, the Washington Post, the Atlanta Constitution and the Austin American Statesman are Liberal? Or the San Francisco Chronicle?
Would you call Katie Kouric a Conservative?
Aside from Fox, what networks would you call Conservative? What newspapers?
I have read that something like 86% of the Washington, D.C., press corps are registered Democrats. Would you disagree with the idea that their political views affect what they consider to be important, vs. what's unimportant? Or how they interpret the meaning of events?
Its not about will anymore its about the corporations and businesses that pay these news orginizations for air time, commercials and space on their papers. They own the news, Look at Imus and how the corporations ran him off MSNBC. News use to be fair and balanced today its bought off media reporting what it wants with whatever spin the owners want. Fox is a prime example of twisted news. Still promoting Bush and his NeoCons no matter what they destroy or do. Saudi's attack the US and Bush attacks Iraq Our Govt,Our News are both owned.
They don't get to practice any real journalism anymore anyway, so does it even matter?
It's like worrying about Michael Jordan's rebounding skills when he's about to tee off in a charity golf tournament.
Believe me, I have friends in the business here in Chicago. Almost all the media is owned by conservatives. Friends of mine at one of the local papers told me that during the last election campaign, the editors endorsed John Kerry for president. The big boss heard about it and made them endorse Bush, practically writing the endorsement himself. The whole city couldn't believe it. That's just one example. I've been told of many more and that it's common in all media these days. Journalists are definitely muzzled- not by the government, but by advertisers, shareholders and owners. There is no "liberal media". It's a complete myth.
'Rat, would you disagree with the view that the editorial policies of The Wall Street Journal, the Chicago Sun-Times, the Washington Times, the Santa Maria Times are Conservative?
Would you call John Stossel a Liberal?
Outside of no one, what networks would you call Liberal? What newspapers?
The percentages are reversed when it comes to management. Would you suppose the views of the Democratic rank-and-file employees, or the views of the Republican management are given more preference in the organization's overall impression?
Do you know of any organization where the views of the employees take precedence over those of their managers?
The print media is struggling in almost every city due to the internet based free press.
This makes them quite vulnerable to pressure from their key advertising accounts and investors.
Big business owners benefited greatly from the Bush administrations
tax incentives, so any attempt to undermine his policies have met strong resistance from those who hold the purse strings.
contrary to what are apparently popular beliefs, the profession of journalism comes with high standards of reporting fairly and leaving out the journalists opinion. (outside of op/ed, of course, i'm talking straight reporting)
how far individual "journalists" have fallen off that wagon of professionalism is up to each to decide, but to damn the entire profession for the partisan acts of a few -- or their corporate owners -- is disingenuous.
leekohler, that's interesting--and startling. I know the Cox chain doesn't behave that way (Atlanta, and I believe Austin).
mac, I don't get a ready chance to be familiar with the Chicago paper. Q: Is the WashTimes that big a circulation, as compared to the Post? While I know there are many small-circulation papers of both liberal and conservative views, I was mostly looking at larger-circulation papers. (FWIW, Las Vegas seems to have one of each. )
I don't doubt the intent of many--or even most--who go into journalism to work toward objectivity in their straight reporting. What I do see, way too often, is word choices in articles that cannot help but input the personal views of the writers.
An example of what I mean: I've seen numerous articles in various papers in several states with a commonality, where the subject was some proposed new tax or government fee. The text would go something like, "Failure of this bill to pass will cost the state (city) $XXXXX per year." No. Wrong. A cost is something you pay out. Foregone income is not a cost. Implicit in the reporter's statement is the idea that those opposing some new tax are wrong. IMO, there's nothing deliberate in the writer's usage; it's a mindset, a political view about the righteousness of new taxes.
Don't misunderstand: I don't imply any sort of evil in what I see as bias. My general view is that those who are inherently conservative by their own upbringing and/or nature are more likely to go into the hard sciences. Those inherently liberal are more likely to go into Liberal Arts programs--and this includes J-School. It's just people, is all. And, of course, no way is there any "all" to it.
chicago has two major papers: the tribune and the sun-times. historically, the trib has been more conservative, and the sun-times more liberal (i'm talking op/ed pages and candidate endorsements).
respective weekday circulations are about 580k and 370k.
i think there's a decent chance that, for your particular example and others like it, the organization's style guidelines would dictate the language to use. and failing that, the desk editor may enforce a specific language.
Yeah, it scared the crap out of me too. But remember, a paper is a business- and the numbers side and ownership side tend to be conservative, while the writers and such, probably tend to be more liberal. So you're correct on both counts. However, editorial control obviously rests with those who have control of the purse, wouldn't you say?
You'd be very surprised at the one I'm referring to. I'm not mentioning it either. I don't need to get anyone in trouble.
Well, she's no liberal.
I remember people thinking Bill Maher, Jon Stewart, and Keith Olberman were conservative back when Clinton was President, they criticized him so much. I don't see how accurately commenting on those in charge makes you any particular ideology, but there it is. I wouldn't call the press conservative, but I wouldn't call them liberal either. No where close. Especially after 9/11, and looking at the run up to the Iraq war, when any criticism was seen as unpatriotic. All they care about are ratings, because it's all about profit and entertainment. Thought everybody knew that.
I thought that they dug deep into Paris Hilton... literally I meant.
I still have friends who argue every point with exact sound bites quoted from
Karl Rove's manifesto.
It like they don't have one original thought in their brains.
It just rattles your cage to think so many people can be so gullible.