Do you believe the media serve the public interest?

[Walsingham]

Just a few thoughts to kick off:

 

1. The media sensationalises scientific stories leading to confusion over important issues like climate change, leading to bewilderment leading to disinterest.

 

2. The media trivialises serious stories like crazy people, drunk criminals.

 

3. The media over-plays quite normal stories like muggings, drug taking and so on.

 

4. The media has given away operational plans during combat that have lead to deaths, such as in the Falklands.

 

5. The media act as judge and jury in cases leading to complications of justice, and vigilantism.

[St_Jimmy]

Just a few thoughts to kick off:

 

1. The media sensationalises scientific stories leading to confusion over important issues like climate change, leading to bewilderment leading to disinterest.

 

2. The media trivialises serious stories like crazy people, drunk criminals.

 

3. The media over-plays quite normal stories like muggings, drug taking and so on.

 

4. The media has given away operational plans during combat that have lead to deaths, such as in the Falklands.

 

5. The media act as judge and jury in cases leading to complications of justice, and vigilantism.

 

 

The Media in my mind isn't a 'Necessary evil", it's more of an "evil that shall always exist". BTW like the topic.

 

Hmmmm. Quick thoughts I suppose.

 

1. True, but that's a very vague description of said sensationalization.

 

2. I think we all trivialize those stories inside our homes once we hear of them. However, to experience them is another matter. I think the media might be to blame for that, so I agree with that statement.

 

3. They need to fill in a time slot. Simple as that. Quite annoying really.

 

4. BBC sucks doesn't it?

 

5. Probably the thing I hate the most about it. When the government in a socialist country doesn't control the popular opinion; the media and the investors do. It's really a question of who you want controlling the masses. Obviously, Mass Media is a horrible thing at times; but with out it, we would be lost.

[Walsingham]

1. Fair enough. I was talking about things like the advice on health. Every time something comes up, which is never meant to be a summary of all research, the media represents it as "Scientists say x" Then contradict it next week.

 

4. I'm sure it can't just be the BBC. I just don't know any other examples.

 

5. You can do better for a counter-argument than that! Run with the ball, man!

[Tale]

It varies. God does it vary. It varies so much I think the collective "the media" is nonsensical. As "the media" will often present conflicting opinions and degrees of opinions on the same issue. Some of these may serve the public interest, some may not. I think a good question to ask in this debate is "what is the public interest?" As that varies as well.

[Hell Kitty]

It depends. If I agree with what they are saying, then yes. If I disagree with what they are saying, then no.

[Meshugger]

Homer knows more than all of us

[Guard Dog]

On the whole, I agree with Tale. The news media is selling a product. Like it or not, that is how it is. Their product is their broadcast and they want you watching so they spin up and hype trivial stories into major events in the hopes that elevating the importance of BS will get people watching. Case in point, Paris Hilton going to jail.

 

But when the chips are down , the media is important and when there is a major event or public safety issue it is the only way to get the word out to the people and it does that very well. Where I live we have had seven hurricanes hit in the last four years, the local news media is the only way to find out what is open where, what roads are closed, stuff like that.

[GreasyDogMeat]

Depends on the situation.

 

One 'news' program I can't stand is the Nancy Grace show. She sensationalizes everything, and nine times out of ten her show is about baby abuse.

 

'Baby in the microwave! Baby in a plastic bag behind a house! Baby on the freeway!'

 

Watch her show for a week and you will come to think every parent on the planet is unfit and babies are dropping like flies left and right.

 

Not only that but she can be a raging b!tch with her guests. Interrupts constantly with the 'Woah woah woah! Back the blah truck up a moment! We're talking about babies in microwaves and you bring THIS statistic up?' Then during any discussion where things aren't going her way, or just for the hell of it, she'll roll pictures of victims of whatever nastiness she is discussing that day. "Take a look at the screen behind me and all these faces."

 

She has an interesting background, and had a former husband (or fiance) who was murdered, and she might actually be a decent person face to face, but god I can't stand her show.

 

Hah, Paris Hilton coverage. If you added up all the hours of coverage on a single event, and weighed that events 'importance' with the number of hours devoted to it Paris Hilton would probably be THE MOST IMPORTANT EVENT IN HISTORY EVAR!

Edited August 13, 2007 by GreasyDogMeat

[Tale]

I think the media is slow sometimes, which can be very annoying. Case in point: http://www.dentonrc.com/sharedcontent/dws/...r.2a782847.html

There was nothing to be found on this yesterday. I looked. My friend in Denton called me at 5PM to look for him because he'd been without power for 7 and 1/2 hours on the hottest day of the year. Nothing. Newspapers were more concerned with selling the next day's paper than they were about giving the public information in this case.

 

This isn't always the way it goes, but it's damned annoying when it is.

Edited August 13, 2007 by Tale

[Blarghagh]

I am definately pro-media. Journalism on the other hand is a completely different matter.

[Walsingham]

You mean the question is kind of like 'does food serve the public interest?'

 

 

The Paris Hilton thing is an excellent example. We were discussing this the other night and I suggested that the news was becoming like music. It's much much easier to manufacture a story from scratch than to go hunt one out. Many recent news stories have been like boy bands. 100% vat-grown. This squeezes out real news from the headlines. Sure it makes us feel like we're getting fed information, but we're being fed fast food garbage.

 

Wow. When I start mixing metaphors I really run up the stove-pipe and salute the elephant.

[Kaftan Barlast]

One thing that really disapoints me about media is that we dont get Comedy Central here. We have friggin' FoxNews but where do we go for a laugh? Where?!!

 

Do these people have any idea how hard it is for me to have to illegally download the latest 'The Colbert Rapport' from the internet? Sometimes hours or even nearly a day after it airs. It's disgraceful, this kind of denial-of-cable-tv behaviour will not stand.

[Sand]

The Media is a industry, a business, and they will produce crap to make money like any business. They do not serve the public interest but they do not go against it. They are in it for themselves to make money and the public dictates to them on what they want to see.

[theslug]

I enjoy when they do stories on cats or other animals.

[Pop]

A lot of the problems with media as it exists today stems from the advent of 24-hour news networks. You usually end up seeing a story that would normally take half an hour to cover dragged it out for 6 or 7 hours, days at a time. Most of the time the newscast is going faster than the actual information is coming in, so you'll have hours of dead weight and speculation. On top of that you get stories that get latched on to and become bloated. My earliest recollection of such is the OJ Simpson trial, and I remember being 7 or 8, just getting cable and finding that goddamn trial inescapable (for the record, I wanted OJ to win because he was a big black guy, just as I wanted GHW Bush to win in '92 because he was the guy with glasses, and glasses rock). That's a big part of what makes things like the Daily Show and Colbert Report so refreshing. A lot of people regard such shows as political parodies, when really they're more parodies of what news has become (the inane, fact-less news broadcast and the bloviating pundit)

 

But beyond that, there's still absolutely vital journalism being done, particularly investigative in nature, usually in print, occasionally online (the "blogs are the new newspapers" movement never held much weight with me), domestically and abroad. It's not all good, you understand, but when it is it's as good as it ever was.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Pop

[Walsingham]

New word: bloviating.

[Deadly_Nightshade]

Frankly, the media are not the ones responsible for the current, dismal state of our news broadcasts: we, the viewers and consumers, are. By demanding more sensationalized and simplistic news stories -not to mention the scandalous or irrelevant crap, mainly about celebrities, that is constantly spewing into the system- the public is lowering itself to the lowest common denominator and than wondering why the media has turned into a slush-pit of extraneous, melodramatic stories that should have never made it into a national broadcast. Yet the public, and when I say public I am mainly talking about the American public for the simple reason that I know more about it than any other country

[Pop]

News media isn't a free market in which power is in the hands of the consumer, and as such I think it's a little simplistic to blame the consumer entirely for the state of news. What goes on air has about as much to do with the wants of the people as it does with what marketing thinks the people want as much as it has to do with what narrow focus groups want. I'd credit the 24-hour standard with that problem as well. You've got 24 long hours to talk about something. On the one hand, you've got car bombs in Iraq and Katrina survivors getting shafted in Baton Rouge. On the other hand, you've got John Edwards' hairstyle and Paris Hilton losing her inheritance. You don't go with what the people will want, you don't even go with what the people will watch, you go with what the people won't get tired of, and the people don't get tired of gossip. So who's the greater coward, the newscaster who won't air bad news or the average person who doesn't like bad news?

Edited August 14, 2007 by Pop

[Walsingham]

Catch this video before it gets taken down. It's old, but it's great stuff.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaoX_SgNO70...ted&search=

 

really talking about the subversion of the media.

[Pop]

Catch this video before it gets taken down. It's old, but it's great stuff.

 

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=AaoX_SgNO70...ted&search=

 

really talking about the subversion of the media.

I didn't see it so much as a talk on the subversion of the free press but radicalization of youth (certainly, the rise of leftism in the 60's and 70's might lend some credence to this, but that may very well have been a natural progression) and he's certainly right about leninist/marxist aggression - Che Guevera died fighting a stalinist revolution the peasantry didn't want, at the behest of the Kremlin.

 

But at the same time, the presence and support of a Ron Paul supporter and an overt "Mexicans / Muslims are subverting Americans / Europeans!" racist in the comments section provides some pause.

Edited August 14, 2007 by Pop

[Walsingham]

Sorry, Pop. I have got so used to the inundation of Youtube by people who say stuff like

 

'wyt racsrs arebestLOL OMFG . All *racial epithet* are stink cabbage. I R better than mandela. Ha ha ha."

 

I actually misread Ron Paul as Ru Paul. I suggest you try it.

[taks]

News media isn't a free market in which power is in the hands of the consumer, and as such I think it's a little simplistic to blame the consumer entirely for the state of news. What goes on air has about as much to do with the wants of the people as it does with what marketing thinks the people want as much as it has to do with what narrow focus groups want.

probably true. the media tend to fabricate interest by repeatedly pushing what limited groups (e.g. your narrow focus groups) are interested in. i still fault journalists, however, as they are the ones that take on these pet projects out of their own ideological view of the world (right, left, center, wherever).

 

So who's the greater coward, the newscaster who won't air bad news or the average person who doesn't like bad news?

the newscaster. it is difficult for the average person to even make a judgement on good/bad news if only one side is presented. it is the journalist's responsibility to present it all, for better or worse. unfortunately, there is only a limited amount of bandwidth, which limits news to what is "newsworthy." that last term gives them a lot of latitude in determining what is and isn't important enough to air. as a result, they cherry pick their own pet projects.

 

keep in mind, too, that "bad" is a very relative term. sometimes the media releases _only_ the bad w.r.t. some situation, to further their own basic belief that whatever the situation may be, it is undesirable and the people need to agree. of course, i prefer this to the old days when the government had a larger role in what the media was allowed to report.

 

taks

Edited August 14, 2007 by taks

[Guard Dog]

i prefer this to the old days when the government had a larger role in what the media was allowed to report.

 

taks

I agree. Rep. Mike Pence from your home state has sponsered the Broadcaster Freedom Act which will prevent future presidents from interfering with the media via excecutive order, or the revival of the very un-American concept of the

"Fairness Doctrine". The democrats are, of course, fighting tooth and nail against it. Typical. They oppose anything with "Freedom" in the title.

[taks]

never heard of mike pence. of course, i've only been in CO for 4 1/2 years. i only marginally pay attention to state politics, so it'll be a decade before i notice who's running our affairs.

 

the fact that legislation must be passed to enforce what is otherwise covered in the constitution bothers me. not only is freedom of the press "covered" by the constitution, it is done so _explicitly_. things such as the fairness doctrine or any executive order limiting the press are incomprehensible in that regard (i'm 50/50 on gov't restrictions of war-time news from the field, since there is a necessity to keep some things quiet... geraldo and the BBC notwithstanding).

 

taks

[Dark_Raven]

The media serves their own best interest. Death, destruction, drama! These type of topics rule supreme with very little being mentioned about someone doing something good or other good deeds.