The Media

[Strider]

Has it always been this way? Think about this:

So-called "yellow journalism" came about in the mid-19th century, when America's urban cities had numerous newspapers competing with each other for the public's business. Outrageous claims sold copies. One example was the "guilty before proven innocent" headlines America threw at Spain after the naval ship Maine blew up in Havana in 1896. Never mind that there was absolutely no evidence to prove that was the case, but the media made a convincing case nonetheless, and thus the Spanish-American War took place.

So, yeah, it's been around for a while. And like everything else, it all came back to money.

[ShunNakamura]

I don't like the media... too much time spent on celebrities and the like.. and not enough on world events/politics or on breakthroughs in science/medicine and such. Basically they want to get the majority of the less literate to watch and give them ratings... likely because the less literate are easier to predict(or it has been in my experience). Btw literate here I am using almost interchangable with intellect. Most people I know who are highly intellegent watch little news.. they DO research instead.

Media news definately needs to be revamped a bit... it is a nice to have things in the paper to "sell" but the point is you shouldn't do it with the news that you are supposed to be UNBIASED about. the added seller for newspapers should be stuff like editorials, and the old yet lucrative idea of writing continuing stories in the paper. On TV they could hold a debate between one of thier newsmen(or women) and an expert in a field or just between several different experts with the newsman(or woman) putting forth a few questions to keep it on the topic that the news station wanted discused.

A good example is since we have made so many genetic breakthroughs in DNA and such is to have some sort of Debate on the "Frankestienian ideas" and such... that could attract alot of attention since we are nearing the day in age when such a thing could be scientifically possible.

But anyways the news ain't all wrong.. it just needs to get a set of priorities and get some things straightened out.

[Miriel]

*head-desk*

Calling the media the "ultimate lie" is sensationalistic in itself.

Sensationalism existed way before Hearst and Pulitzer came along with Yellow Journalism. As long as human beings were exchanging news with each other, there were (and always will be) exaggerations.

For example, just today my suitemate told me: "Oh my god, I swear the lady almost ran me over and KILLED ME with her bike!"

Obviously my friend wasn't going to die from getting hit by a bike going 5 mph.

I'll admit it, I do have a bias for the Media since one of my majors is Communication/Journalism.

Yes, I know all about how deceptive certain people within the media can be. I know all about Stephen Glass and Jayson Blair and the lies they passed off as truths. But the media for the most part isn't as deceptive as you all seem to think it is. All the journalists I've met have integrity and pride in what they do. And believe it or not, but journalists do have a code of ethics that the majority of them actually follow.

The Media has completely revamped itself in the 21st century. These days, you can always find two, three, four, a dozen different sides to one story. How the hell can you know that Fox News is reporting bias news if there weren't other media outlets that showed a completely different side to what Fox was reporting?

One aspect of the media claimed that there was an epidemic of school violence, but at the same time there were other sources of media that showed that this epidemic was nonexistent.

I'll be the first one to tell you that you should never rely on any single news source for information. But most people are too lazy (or don't care enough) to look at multiple publications/broadcasts to get their news.

I know I'm not going to sway any opinions, but I'm glad that there are at least a few people here who don't consider the media to be completely evil. *blows a kiss at fire_of_avalon*

[Itsunari 2000]

I agree. The Media has really degenerated into this conundrum of half-truths and wild sensationalism : anything , even if it's truth and relevance is questionable is beamed to millions for the sake of the ratings.This is why they need honest and down-to-earth reporters/journalists to combat the political bias and truthfully inform the public.

[Raistlin]

The media has its own agenda - that's what a lot of people don't realize.

[edczxcvbnm]

The media has its own agenda - that's what a lot of people don't realize.

Yeah. Control, Money and World Domination!

[Raistlin]

Maybe a little less of the "control" and "world domination" part.

[Sephex]

In my Journalism class, I loved what my teacher said about the phrase, "Seekers of truth."

"Whose truth?"

[ShunNakamura]

Miriel, I'll try to give the best most clear version I can on my opinions.

The media is trusted with the job to inform the masses with current events, based on the truth. Yes?

Multiple media sources means it is easy for one to get the diversity that one would wish. Yes?

I combine the two and simply say.... people will only watch what they want(obviousally) thus limiting their own knowledge.. that or they will be too lazy to look it up themselves. THIS IS WHERE THE MEDIA COMES IN. the media, all media, should give a comprehensive view covering all angles... not only does it strengthen your angle if you do it right, but you at least give people all the information.

So media has a job to bring current events to the people, and since it is public knowledge that people generally won't research it themselves, it is also the media's job to show all sides of any given event... even if they themselves refute it.

My teachers would flunk me if I wrote a research paper that left out important info becuase "I didn't aggree with it". It is my job instead to use the info I dont' aggree with to strengthen my own case... can we expect anyless from the media?

[Miriel]

I wasn't the one who claimed that you couldn't find objective reporting in the Media. I think publications like the Wall Street Journal are for the most part objective and fair. There are still reporters I can look to who will provide me with comprehensive news coverage that I can trust.

*shrugs*

I just don't see how people can say that the Media is evil. I mean, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

[ShunNakamura]

I just don't see how people can say that the Media is evil. I mean, talk about making a mountain out of a molehill.

my entire post wasn't directed at you.. it was just your post that started my line of thinking... Also Seeing it as EVIL isn't correct... it is hard to have true good or evil in or world.. does the many media sources need some revamping? Yes I think so.. some things they do is not the best IMHO. but meh I guess to each their own.. personally I do my own research so it isn't like I get my TRUE info from them anyways. But it is sad how many people will take it at face value.

[Sasquatch]

Most mainstream media is out of touch with American society. Actually, in all honestly, quite a bit of it is because most TV media leans too far left. Why do people think Fox News now has more viewers than CNN, ABC, CBS, and MSNBC combined? It's not because Fox News leans so far to the right, it's because the rest lean so far to the left. I will admit, I'm sure Fox News isn't completely neutral, just like all the other news sources, but people are tired of the constant left-wing control over their news.

Somebody mentioned the New York Times, which is one of the most liberal major newspapers in the country. It's mirror is the New York Post, which is also a major newspaper in this country, and is a conservative newspaper. There always has been and always will be bias, there's nothing we can do about that but change sources until we find something we're happy with.

There's a book called "Bias", by Goldman, or Goldwater, or something like that, I think. The author was a 20-year journalist for CBS news, and the book describes the bias that they've been showing throughout his whole career.

[UltimaLimit]

From what I understand, news has been driven lately by a handful of super-companies trying to make a profit. They use sensational violence and scandal because it draws big crowds, so they get more advertisers and more money. I agree that this is wrong.

However, what people (including me) forget is that we can simply turn it off. We can go watch something peaceful and non-sensational. If sensational news stations lose enough viewers they'll take the hint. They lead us by the nose, but we lead them, too.

[fire_of_avalon]

I really don't understand the concept of media being out of touch with American society. The media is a reflection of American society, if it's anything. That's one of the purposes of "the media", to show the society it belongs to what that society is comprised of. The reason sensationalism is a big trend in news media again is because the American public eats it up. Stop eating it up, and it'll change, I guarantee it.

It's your choice what you view and what you do not view. I don't see how people can tout on the media being this biased institution when I know not ONE of you, or me for that matter, is taking a strictly objective view.

Yes, the media does have it's own agenda. To make money. Do you think journalists and reporters should do this stuff as a public service, or as volunteers? Would you rather see government managed media that suits "the taste of the American public?"

It's great for the life of the media that you hate it, because in effect that's another one of it's purposes, to make you think outside yourself so you won't become complacent citizens and just let stuff happen. But don't hand me this lack of objectivity crap when you yourselves don't have any objectivity at all when it comes to the discussion.