Well, isn't that obvious?

http://www.cnn.com/2004/HEALTH/11/23...eut/index.html

I don't really know where to put this, so move it as necessary.

I don't want to talk about AIDS. We know about AIDS. We know AIDS is bad. I want to talk about statements of the obvious.

Of course half of all AIDS victims are female. There are two genders. I'm sorry, but it only makes sense to assume that the numbers are pretty much balanced.

What I'd like to discuss is the, forgive me if this is rude, "dumbing down" of some media aspects. I realize the media is meant to be accessible to all people, and I strongly support that. However, it is also the job of the media to generate thought within its audience. I feel that the media is no longer fulfilling that task as well as it should, with most broadcast news (and an increasing number of newspapers) reporting only blurbs and statistics, no longer reactions and opinions.

Does anyone else feel this way, or am I just picky?

Quote:

---

Of course half of all AIDS victims are female. There are two genders. I'm sorry, but it only makes sense to assume that the numbers are pretty much balanced.

---

Actually, it's much easier for a woman to contract the disease, physically speaking. However, while many men tend to 'screw around', women often don't, so they only compose half of the HIV-stricken people, and not more.

The media was never meant to make people think. The media is a tool of information and- ironically- desinformation. I won't get into it, but if you are interested on the issue, there are preety interesting books and articles by Noam Chomsky.

The whole point of the thread was to "get into it". :(

Quote:

---

there are preety interesting books and articles by Noam Chomsky.

---

HE'S ONE OF US!!! (though I wish he wasn't...) :D

Very interesting thread, I'll give my take:

Part of the reason for what seems to be media's general "dumbing-down" is the direct effect of technology, specifically the telegraph, the radio and then the TV. In each instance, news had to be shorted down, made into what are now known as "sound bites" so that they could be watched or heard very rapidly and without worry of overwhelming those who were listening to it.

A perfect example is the news ticker at the bottom of all the major cable news channels such as CNN and Foxnews. They only show headlines without all the detail and as a rule, must try to be as catchy as possible so that the audience will read it and be interested in the story. Then, when the story is actually reported, it must be broken down into little catchy phrases or "Bites" that can instantly make the audience understand the story, even though the context is often lost.

When the telegraph and radio came out, nearly 2/3 of the country did not finish high school, so at that time, the general audience was not educated to the extent they are now and hence, the news almost HAD to be simplified in order for it to be fully understood. Yet today, with nearly half of the general population going to and finishing college degrees, news has stayed simplified because our minds are bombarded and cluttered with all sorts of outside stimuli anyway and in order to keep viewship up, the news must not be too overhwleming, but rather, to quote an old TV show, "Just the facts" and really nothing more.

However, despite all that, there are still many wonderful places to go or search to get an entire story not broken down for TV or radio: Most national newspapers and the internet. Both, since they are written for us to read, must be more detailed since we don't have the visual aid of pictures to fill in themissing details on TV.

The biggest problem today however, is the Conservative triumph in making the news media seem liberal and bias. Ironically, this only started occuring post 9/11, right around the invasion of Iraq, when the media jumped off the Bush bandwagon and began questioning them. Sure, media has a bias, but it goes both ways. Neither CNN or Foxnews is completely moderate. The best way to get real news is to see or read a story from multiple sources. I always read the NY Times, Time Magazine, and watch BBC news to get three varied perspectives on stories and the details that are constant, I take to be true.

Sadly, "dumbing down" news will probably be with us for a long time, if not forever, but there are always alternatives to really get the facts.

Take care all.

Unfortunately though if you look at written media now and how it was fifty years ago, the level of writing is significantly lessened over time. Even written media has been dumbed down to excrutiatingly painful levels.

Certain ones for sure, but others have gotten better. I think it all depends on the level of writers a newspaper has. The NY Times and Washington Post both have top notch writers and having read papers in archives from decades ago, I can honestly say I think their level of work has gone up.

Take care all.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

HE'S ONE OF US!!! (though I wish he wasn't...) :D

---

He is one of us too!

Who of yous is he from?

As for what The Captain said, yes, I agree with him. I would like to add that such accelerated way of exposing the news is done in a way the viewer cannot construct doubt about the situation exposed. The edition is made in a way it creates a dramatic impact of visual intensity, even when the deep understanding of the news is blurred. The interviews are cut on vocal pauses but edited in a way there is not a feeling anything has been removed, and in the end, such way of communicating is an afirmation of the importance of image above the substance.

However, I do not thing tghe alternative, meaning radio or newspapers, is really a way of bneing informed. The media is at the service of the modern order, and as such it has a mission to expose arguments to mantain it, and give more importance to some issues than others. Thats why I recommended Noam Chosmky, who has very critical articles against The New York Time (yes....I think it's meant to be liberal media) where he exposes a study on how the news related to Cambodia did recive much more covering (much, much more) to the one happening in East Timor at the same time, that was practically ignored. This not only happens in such case: media makes a great covering on US in Iraq. And since I am very critical, being critical with the left winged media, I will say something: you can try to show how screwed up the US is, and you have plenty of evidence for it, a lot of contradictions. You can do the same with Israel. However, being serious, why do countries like France or China oftenly escape such criticism? What about Europe really? It's like US is so evil and the EU is wonderful? Hell no, the European Union is about to pass a constitution (if you can call it as such) that will bring Europe into progressive privatization, favour the corporations and violate the democratic rights. Oh, yeah, wait, they are against Bush. Big deal, they are against him because they are the same . I would recommend any european to check the articles 40-43 of the constitution and applaud such a pathetic show. But of course, Bush is so stupid and ugly, and Bin Laden is so evil and has such an evil beard, we can forget about the rest of the bastards doing whatever they want.

Quote:

---

He is one of us too!

Who of yous is he from?

---

He's a freaking Jew and Israeli, that's what I meant... though he spends most of his bloody time in the USA.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by War Angel

He's a freaking Jew and Israeli, that's what I meant... though he spends most of his bloody time in the USA.

---

Is there something wrong with being in the USA, asides from the fact the food tends to suck?

And I don't think he is a Jew, or at least not in religion (maybe in race, but I am not good at distinguishing races, all I know is that jews are supposed to have a large nose and curly hair, or such is the stereorype...even if I don't see many jews like that). Geez, he has even been called anti-semtist, although I find that accusation to be founded on a very weak base...in fact, it's more like a misunderstanding of something Chomsky said.

As soon as I saw this topic title I thought of Ashlee Simpson's Pieces of Me. But eh.

The job of the media is to gather information and distribute it in an unbiased form. I don't think it's the media's job to make us think, you can't really think much about facts. I mean if a rock falls down due to gravity, that's it...not much thought into that.

It's really the opinion columns that I find interest in when I read the newspaper.