Interesting developments in some USA Media circles

[BruceVC]

http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2015/02/10/jon-stewart-leaving-daily-show-quits_n_6656996.html

 

So.....its a sad day. Jon Stewart is leaving the Daily Show after 15 years of providing us with hilarious, accurate and sobering news updates presented through parody . I think the guys is a legend and will be sorely missed

 

Then we have the opposite side of the coin where Brian Williams is being suspended for 6 months without pay for misrepresenting certain news articles from his personal coverage in various military events like Iraq

 

http://www.cbsnews.com/news/nbc-news-anchor-brian-williams-suspended-6-months-without-pay/

 

 

But why the Williams story is significant is it shows us the that Western media does indeed regulate itself and is concerned with the veracity of its stories and the integrity of its news presenters. Despite what some people on these forums will tell us where they compare Western Media with the propaganda of RT which is state sponsored 

 

 

 

 

[Guard Dog]

I wouldn't go heaping too much praise on the media self regulating. They only "come to Jesus" when someone has been caught red-handed. If this could have been swept under the rug it would have been. Remember Dan Rather. He went on the air with stories of questionable veracity all the time and when he got caught red-handed he castigated the people who exposed him.

 

As for Jon Stewart he was not the first Daily Show host, he won't be the last. But he was funny. He definitely put his stamp on it.

 

The truth is network nightly national news is probably going the way of Saturday morning cartoons. Between the internet and cable new networks is something of a dinosaur that should be put down.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Guard Dog

[BruceVC]

I wouldn't go heaping too much praise on the media self regulating. They only "come to Jesus" when someone has been caught red-handed. If this could have been swept under the rug it would have been. Remember Dan Rather. He went on the air with stories of questionable veracity all the time and when he got caught red-handed he castigated the people who exposed him.

 

As for Jon Stewart he was not the first Daily Show host, he won't be the last. But he was funny. He definitely put his stamp on it.

 

Sure, I'm not suggesting that Western Media is perfect but I am trying to raise the point that most Western media houses are independent of governments and do try to present news in an objective way. That does not mean there aren't ideological loyalties, like Fox News and there support for the Republicans. 

 

But we constantly hear accusations around how all Western media houses are biased and  no worse than RT. In other words they cannot be trusted, I obviously don't support this view. The fact that Williams was suspended confirms this and I don't believe its just because the story couldn't be swept under the rug. I believe its because he mislead the viewing public in several cases and NBC needed to take punitive steps 

Edited February 11, 2015 by BruceVC

[Valsuelm]

If every mainstream media anchor that mislead the public got suspended for 6 months with no pay tomorrow, about the only ones that would be working would be the brand new ones (if there are any) that just haven't had a chance to mislead us yet.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Valsuelm

[BruceVC]

If every mainstream media anchor that mislead the public got suspended for 6 months with no pay tomorrow, about the only ones that would be working would be the brand new ones (if there are any) that just haven't had a chance to mislead us yet.

 

And Jon Stewart Vals, are you sad to see him going?

[Valsuelm]

 

If every mainstream media anchor that mislead the public got suspended for 6 months with no pay tomorrow, about the only ones that would be working would be the brand new ones (if there are any) that just haven't had a chance to mislead us yet.

 

And Jon Stewart Vals, are you sad to see him going?

 

 

Not really. I generally don't get emotionally involved on what a TV personality does or doesn't do. I'm indifferent in regards to what Jon does. Good for him I suppose as he's wanting to go do something else.

Edited February 11, 2015 by Valsuelm

[HoonDing]

Is Larry King still around?

[BruceVC]

Is Larry King still around?

Yes he is actually 

 

He has a show called Larry King Now, http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Larry_King_Now

 

And RT broadcasts his show, I have never watched it so I'm  not sure how good it is 

[Gorth]

Trust mainstream media at your own peril. They are as self regulated as a board of directors or the groups of lobbyists infecting the parliamentary system. The only "regulation" they seem to do is balancing their special interest groups agenda with the bottomline of their balance sheets. Sometimes the one get prioritized higher, sometimes the other.

[BruceVC]

Trust mainstream media at your own peril. They are as self regulated as a board of directors or the groups of lobbyists infecting the parliamentary system. The only "regulation" they seem to do is balancing their special interest groups agenda with the bottomline of their balance sheets. Sometimes the one get prioritized higher, sometimes the other.

 

Gorthfucius !!!! It worries when you represent the soothsayer of doom and gloom around the integrity of media houses 

 

Two questions

• What should concern all of us are not the board of directors that control the various  media houses but rather can media houses present us with objective and accurate news stories. If CNN, Sky, Al-Jazeera and BBC all have the same story, and they often do, does this not mean that the story is credible ?
• If you don't believe media houses can be trusted who do you personally trust for accurate news stories?

[Blarghagh]

I don't think western media is a propoganda machine, I just think it's far too easy to cut out little bits of fact and skew public perception. This thing with Williams isn't so much self-regulation as it is pulling back someone who went too far. Esentially a sacrificial lamb on the altar of public trust. You should automatically distrust the media - there are too many ways for them to change the narrative, from editing to word choice to what images you put under a section to what time of day you air a video segment.

 

I'm not saying that all the media is evil and trying to manipulate you, I'm saying that the simple fact of who they pick to read the news about it can already completely sway public perception of an issue. Sometimes they do it without even realizing. Video editor has a bad day and inadvertently has a slightly aggressive beat to his edit rhythm and you've got a different kind of segment. Journalist just got laid and writes about a serious issue with slightly less damning tone.

 

Some parts of the media may be trying to actively manipulate people, I don't know, but even if it was 100% certain that this didn't happen you still should keep a healthy level of distrust simply because media producers are people, not machines, and people are fickle. This is exactly why journalistic guidelines are so important, because it's so easy to mess up.

[BruceVC]

I don't think western media is a propoganda machine, I just think it's far too easy to cut out little bits of fact and skew public perception. This thing with Williams isn't so much self-regulation as it is pulling back someone who went too far. Esentially a sacrificial lamb on the altar of public trust. You should automatically distrust the media - there are too many ways for them to change the narrative, from editing to word choice to what images you put under a section to what time of day you air a video segment.

 

I'm not saying that all the media is evil and trying to manipulate you, I'm saying that the simple fact of who they pick to read the news about it can already completely sway public perception of an issue. Sometimes they do it without even realizing. Video editor has a bad day and inadvertently has a slightly aggressive beat to his edit rhythm and you've got a different kind of segment. Journalist just got laid and writes about a serious issue with slightly less damning tone.

 

Some parts of the media may be trying to actively manipulate people, I don't know, but even if it was 100% certain that this didn't happen you still should keep a healthy level of distrust simply because media producers are people, not machines, and people are fickle. This is exactly why journalistic guidelines are so important, because it's so easy to mess up.

 

This is a reasonable post about the integrity of media houses

 

The one thing that people seem to ignore or not to be aware of  is that there has a huge push in almost all media houses to make news more interactive and multi dimensional . The days of the classic news presenter telling us the news are only part of the spectrum when it comes to how stories get told. Nowadays you have guests and live interviews with people on the ground and then you get panels of people who  represent different angles of the news. Shows like Dateline London on BBC and the superlative Fareed Zakaria show on  CNN are examples of how media houses are changing with how they convey information 

[Gorth]

Two questions

• What should concern all of us are not the board of directors that control the various  media houses but rather can media houses present us with objective and accurate news stories. If CNN, Sky, Al-Jazeera and BBC all have the same story, and they often do, does this not mean that the story is credible ?

It's a bit like the old idea of letter of the law and spirit of the law (or business statistics, which may an even better allegory). You can have facts represented "creatively" to further an agenda.

 

It's entirely possible that a piece of fact gets out from some area and all news agencies jump at it, reporting it in each their own way, confirming their own bias.

 

Hypothetical example, Ukraine: Ukrainian leaders claim Russian troops are operating in the east. Russians deny russian troops are operating in those areas. Most likely scenario, Russian troops have been encouraged to "volunteer", leaving their official trappings behind and support the rebels where they. Both sides are right, none of the are lying. The full truth just being something that neither side has told, because both sides have an interest in also pursuing the media/PR war.

 

Most news media, I would expect to act in the same way. They may have access to facts, but sometimes how those facts gets delivered and in what context can make it a completely different story.

 

• If you don't believe media houses can be trusted who do you personally trust for accurate news stories?

 

Honestly? None. I read BBC for general coverage, Al Jazeera to get a second opinion, CNN for the "Poular Science Magazine" approach to the news and on rare occasion Fox News if I'm bored and need a good laugh.

 

The trick in my opinion is to know what the presenters bias is, then see if you can filter out the noise. Even better when getting alternate versions of a story and see where they overlap/differ.

[BruceVC]

 

Two questions

• What should concern all of us are not the board of directors that control the various  media houses but rather can media houses present us with objective and accurate news stories. If CNN, Sky, Al-Jazeera and BBC all have the same story, and they often do, does this not mean that the story is credible ?

It's a bit like the old idea of letter of the law and spirit of the law (or business statistics, which may an even better allegory). You can have facts represented "creatively" to further an agenda.

 

It's entirely possible that a piece of fact gets out from some area and all news agencies jump at it, reporting it in each their own way, confirming their own bias.

 

Hypothetical example, Ukraine: Ukrainian leaders claim Russian troops are operating in the east. Russians deny russian troops are operating in those areas. Most likely scenario, Russian troops have been encouraged to "volunteer", leaving their official trappings behind and support the rebels where they. Both sides are right, none of the are lying. The full truth just being something that neither side has told, because both sides have an interest in also pursuing the media/PR war.

 

Most news media, I would expect to act in the same way. They may have access to facts, but sometimes how those facts gets delivered and in what context can make it a completely different story.

 

• If you don't believe media houses can be trusted who do you personally trust for accurate news stories?

 

Honestly? None. I read BBC for general coverage, Al Jazeera to get a second opinion, CNN for the "Poular Science Magazine" approach to the news and on rare occasion Fox News if I'm bored and need a good laugh.

 

The trick in my opinion is to know what the presenters bias is, then see if you can filter out the noise. Even better when getting alternate versions of a story and see where they overlap/differ.

 

 

Thats a good example about Ukraine but I do feel that Russia has been extremely disingenuous and cavalier around the truth about their active involvement in Ukraine. What makes it worst in regards to media houses is that they control, not influence, the narrative of RT. So even though Western media houses may not always present a story as accurately as it should be presented they are not as selective as RT in portrayal of the facts and what is really going on.

 

And there are large numbers of people who only have RT as a reference, they don't have access to other sources

[Hurlshort]

I thunk the Brian Williams suspension is ridiculous.  The guy was in a helicopter flying around in a war zone 12 years ago.  It's not like he was back in the States sitting in a studio.  Try to remember specifics about what you were doing 12 years ago, it isn't easy.  He interviewed a helicopter crew an hour after they crashed while they were still on the ground repairing the thing.  He didn't need to make up anything for that to sound impressive, it already is.  It is clear that he struggled to recall the full story and he apologized for it immediately.  I don't get why this is a big story, and I certainly don't think a suspension is appropriate.  

 

So seriously, try to clearly recall the events in your life from 12 years ago.

[Gfted1]

It is my understanding that he's been telling that story since 2006-07, so imo, its not "faulty recollection".

[Hassat Hunter]

But why the Williams story is significant is it shows us the that Western media does indeed regulate itself and is concerned with the veracity of its stories and the integrity of its news presenters.

Fox news disagrees with you. Then again, being fox news, you probably need to take that with a grain of salt.

 

[/thread]

[Amentep]

So seriously, try to clearly recall the events in your life from 12 years ago.

I can still remember the accident I was in 25 years ago. So much so that I can still remember the expressions on the faces of the family in the other car.

 

I'd suspect that I would remember being in a helocopter hit by a missle vs being on the ground and seeing a helocopter that had been hit before us. There's a huge, huge difference in experiences there. And as gfted1 says, he's been telling the story for a decade at least.

[Leferd]

Classic.

 

[Barothmuk]

Despite what some people on these forums will tell us where they compare Western Media with the propaganda of RT which is state sponsored.

And just like the U.S the state that "sponsors" this propaganda is commanded by and serves the interests of its own ruling oligarchy.

[Gorgon]

I think Stewart looked a bit tired the last couple of months, like he had already made his retirement money and would rather do something else. 

 

The show has had some incredible high points though. The fact that the show could out compete the regular news media in credibility should tell you something about how bad things really are. 

[Namutree]

 

Despite what some people on these forums will tell us where they compare Western Media with the propaganda of RT which is state sponsored.

And just like the U.S the state that "sponsors" this propaganda is commanded by and serves the interests of its own ruling oligarchy.

 

This is my view as well. They are bought and paid for. I wouldn't trust them much (if any) more than state media.

[BruceVC]

Classic.

 

 

 : lol:

 

Seriously that must be one of the most funniest and brilliant interviews I have ever seen, epic win 

 

He really put those crossfire guys on the spot, you can see how annoyed they got...especially the younger one 

 

Was he ever invited on crossfire again..was he ever friends again with those 2 guys?

[Leferd]

He essentially destroyed that show and it was soon cancelled, after being around since CNN's inception. Both Paul Begala and Tucker Carlson haven't been relevant in media circles since.

[BruceVC]

 

Despite what some people on these forums will tell us where they compare Western Media with the propaganda of RT which is state sponsored.

And just like the U.S the state that "sponsors" this propaganda is commanded by and serves the interests of its own ruling oligarchy.

 

 

 

 

 

Despite what some people on these forums will tell us where they compare Western Media with the propaganda of RT which is state sponsored.

And just like the U.S the state that "sponsors" this propaganda is commanded by and serves the interests of its own ruling oligarchy.

 

This is my view as well. They are bought and paid for. I wouldn't trust them much (if any) more than state media.

 

 

I really like both of you  because we do agree on many things and both of you have taught me things but you can't seriously be saying that you think the objectivity of the RT is the same as CNN or Sky or AL-Jazeera.....or any other Western media house ?

 

I don't  think you guys understand just how restrictive life is in Russia under Putins new order...and RT is the mouthpiece of his ideological crusade. Its much more biased than any other media house...you must realize this ?