Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads.
Now I am sure everyone who is even mildly interested in current events, politics or news of the day has seen examples of what most call media bias. Today's news is changing quite rapidly and traditional walls to lean upon are crumbling and the press is trying to learn the new medium of internet.
Regardless of your leanings, as I have heard the stories of the liberal press as often as I have heard the calls of Fox and like publicans right wing slant, personally I have no problem with any publication or news agency taking a slant or perspective for whatever angle they choose, I am capable of seeing it and judging accordingly.
However, outside of bias or viewpoint, there is the question of whether or not the press has informal ties at some level with government. As recent hearings concerning NASA, or Dan Rather's law suit stating the government issued pressure to bear upon the media to promote or project some stories and bury others. There were even a large amount of documentation post WWII that suggested that the US government should use the press to the best of its ability as did the Germans and Japanese state ran news as a means to better control or influence the population, this of course is a no brainer.
Here is an example from today's edition of the C S Monitor that describes thousands of anti-war protesters in at least 11 different US cities, yet didn't even get a mention in most of the mainstream newspapers. War protests: Why no coverage? | csmonitor.com
I am sure people could cite plenty of their own examples as well. So this begs the question, is the media being driven by something other than profit and ratings?
Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have. - Richard Salant former CEO of CBS news
Not long ago, perhaps 3-4 months, a conference was held on media, free press, etc. I believe I learned about it listening to a radio broadcast in which Bill Moyers was interviewed about his role in media. It was most edifying. After listening to Mr. Moyers and considering how much I read, I sub'd to this group's updates
I believe that Free Press hosted the conference, possibly in NO.
I don't always read it, but it certainly adds some fuel to the fire that, not only is the media tarnished, it is highly likely that those in government indirectly control or monitor output. Our very free access to the internet is in jeopardy. Not today, but in the long run, it too willl be controlled by corporate giants. Between this issue, loss of internet control, and the FCC's consideration of reversing its ruling on media ownership, the news isn't worth the paper it is printed on, or the time listening or viewing it. Not to be redundant, and wear the dunce cap, here is a thread we both participated in on the possibility of FCC revised regulations:
I don't think it's the government that "controls" the news companies into ignoring some stories over others. As the quote in your post says
Quote:
Our job is to give people not what they want, but what we decide they ought to have. - Richard Salant former CEO of CBS news
Basically, the news companies are trying to get you to see their point of view. That's the entirety of it. They want you to vote for the person they agree with most. News Broadcasting has become a political avenue for a person to create puppets out of the general population.
It's like how they keep mentioning all these recalls of China-made goods - When I worked at Wal-mart, there were at least 3 or 4 big recalls a week. It's honestly a ploy to get you to believe in their ideals. And once they reel you in. BAM! They have ratings and profits!
If we examine who owns the broadcast stations, the newspapers, etc.--carefully, and explore not only who advertises, but who lobbies, who sits on the Board of Directors and who is eating lunch, or having a drink with a government official, we might be able to monitor--at a distance--how the media is controlled.
I think that most, not all, of the media feeds the masses from a spoon paid for by liberal camps with agendas. Thankfully, I'm intelligent and educated and feel that I can see through the slants of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. Thankfully not every media outlet has sunken to the lows of pandering to the highest payer.
I think that most, not all, of the media feeds the masses from a spoon paid for by liberal camps with agendas. Thankfully, I'm intelligent and educated and feel that I can see through the slants of NBC, CBS, ABC, CNN, MSNBC, NPR, etc. Thankfully not every media outlet has sunken to the lows of pandering to the highest payer.
This is the biggest bunch of BS I have read for a long time. The "liberal media" outcry lost its touch back in the 90s pal, when Rush's fatarse harped on it everyday...it doesn't fly anymore [mod cut]
Let me guess, the only un-tainted source is Fox News right?
Last edited by ontheroad; 10-31-2007 at 10:45 AM..
Reason: Offense remark; keep neutral not personal.
I don't always read it, but it certainly adds some fuel to the fire that, not only is the media tarnished, it is highly likely that those in government indirectly control or monitor output. Our very free access to the internet is in jeopardy. Not today, but in the long run, it too willl be controlled by corporate giants. Between this issue, loss of internet control, and the FCC's consideration of reversing its ruling on media ownership, the news isn't worth the paper it is printed on, or the time listening or viewing it. Not to be redundant, and wear the dunce cap, here is a thread we both participated in on the possibility of FCC revised regulations:
Yes, the free-net is definitely in jeopardy and if we lose it, I hope everyone has a copy of Naomi Wolf's presentation. I am counting the days until this administration has passed into history, with only mild hopes that the next one will bear at least a little more wisdom.
Don't sweat the dunce cap, you can borrow mine, propeller and all.
Quote:
Originally Posted by Kuharai
I don't think it's the government that "controls" the news companies into ignoring some stories over others. As the quote in your post says
Basically, the news companies are trying to get you to see their point of view. That's the entirety of it. They want you to vote for the person they agree with most. News Broadcasting has become a political avenue for a person to create puppets out of the general population.
What IS there point of view and is the news supposed to have a point of view or just report what happened? Todays news is entertainment that is informative as well as a for profit gig, in the past things were a bit different.
Also consider who owns big media, companies like General Electric which also just so happen to make much of the machinery for war. Would it be surprising that if they were about to close on a 40 billion dollar contract with the government to provide some device that they wouldn't also want to report on the anti-war protesters?
Also, if the media was in it purely for profit, then during the lead up to war, there was still 25% of the population who were against a war in Iraq. If a single and alleged liberal media outlet wanted to make profits they would have taken an anti-war stance and had a 25% market share all to themselves, which would have been greater than any other market share that was pro-war. So I don't buy it.
Last edited by TnHilltopper; 10-30-2007 at 01:36 PM..
Reason: quote repair
yeah sure, its more like the media are willing accomplices, hence you see the rise of media on the right trying to add some balance. the news papers here in seattle coud be published by the DNC, small wonder they are having trouble GIVING them away!
Well I think most grown ups can see that Hannity leans one way and Olberman leans another, and I am grateful that both views exist, as they should.
However, there is a homogeneity that is quite evident if you take the time to look past the simplistic nature of nightly news entertainment. Ever wonder why nearly every news agency, despite their lean always seem to run the exact same stories? Why do people sit in their easy chairs and cringe every time they see a Britney Spears piece, yet every news channel runs it? God forbid if Timmy is stuck in a well or a pipe, the entire news media will spend the next week running updates every 10 minutes, 24/7. The channel does not matter, don't you all get it?
Take a look at this poll so far, and whether it is true or accurate or not, it is the perceptions that people have which are just as important. If so many people think the US government has some hand in the news, then how can people say it is liberal?
In case you haven't seen it, watch this very short clip, it is not only funny but strikes a cord as well, no matter what direction your views lean.
Welcome to City-Data.com forum! Make sure to register - it's free and very quick! You have to register before you can post and participate in our discussions with 700,000 other registered members. User profiles and some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your free account you will be able to customize many options, you will have the full access to over 15,000 posts/day about local topics and you will see fewer ads. 
The Forth Estate or the Fifth Column?
Linear Mode
