Media influence

RvW · 01-29-2003, 09:08 PM

I hear a lot of people talk about media influence in other countries such a Afganistan and Iraq, and even Iran (years ago)e believe they are misinformed and decieved by thier own gov's in an effort to hate Americans.

Ive always aproached this notion with a question to those folks who believe other countries are being manipulated by thier own media.

Whos telling who lies?

As a journalism major, (and english failure) I wonder how you people feel about our own media, and would love to hear confessions, or even accusations as to how it has biased opinions among us.

In a nuttshell, I think Americans as a whole are SHEEP, being led by the media, and influenced by what sells. "Sentimental fools!" I actually know people who cannot digest thier dinner without Ted Koppel speaking in the background.

Of course I would like to hear the supporting arguements, I'm more interested in those who have at least a little faith in US mainstream media to offer the truth, and why you buy it.

Firedog · 01-29-2003, 09:17 PM

My opinion on our media is that it gets about .25 of the truth or less. And that the actual truth doesn't really matter as long as they can make a good story out of whatever they do have. This comes from different situations I have experienced at work and when the whole truth does come out they don't want it because it isn't controversial enough and doesn't make a good story. They also jump to conclusion's without facts. Just my experience.

Fish_N_Russ · 01-29-2003, 09:46 PM

I agree with you firedog :smile:

The media stations make their money by selling ads. If their stories aren't 'good' enough, then no one watches their station, thus their sponsors get no business. Its no different than any other program on TV when you think about it.

[ 01-29-2003, 10:47 PM: Message edited by: Fish_N_Russ ]

RvW · 01-29-2003, 10:09 PM

Its great to blame the media for selling us the story, but do you buy them?

Forget the sponsors, they can afford the ads without the sales.

Tell me how you have been mislead my mainstream media!

I know you have, but do you?

1pump · 01-30-2003, 02:00 AM

In a lot of countries the media is strictly controlled by the government. Remember TASS, the old Soviet news agency? Or IRNA, in Iran? (just to name a couple) Here in the good ol' USA our free speech (and press) is protected. Jails in South America, Asia, and the Middle East are populated with editors and journalists who dared to **** off The Man.
I don't worry about being misled by the media. It's pretty easy to spot sensationalism and hype, not to mention partisan hypocrisy. That's why I avoid the likes of Stern, Limbaugh, Hannity, Lykas, Imus and Larson. What really freaks me out is that people actually read the National Enquirer :shocked:

Silver Hilton · 01-30-2003, 08:23 AM

I think the media is guilty of sensationalism, and laziness. In general, I don't think that the media itself lies, that's the job of government.

But they are often guilty of pandering to specific audiences.

Example, yesterday I was watching Fox news. Right after the commercial tag line, "Fair and Balanced News", they interviewed somebody who was hawkish on Iraq. The anchor finished the interview, and commented, "Well, we can all agree with that." Then he turned to the woman who seems to be their resident inhouse liberal political commentator, and asked her opinion. She dissented with the prior interviewee, at which point the anchor started interrupting her, arguing with her, and basically shut her down. Anyone who was watching that who wasn't paying close attention would get the emotional impression that the institution of Fox News was validating the opinion of the first interviewee. Fair and balanced? I doubt it. Popular with their chosen audience, absolutely.

I turned the coverage back to CNN for contrast. Similar types of interviews, but Wolf Blitzer seemed to show equal respect for both sides of the debate.

Point being, I think Fox has chosen to make a name for itself by pandering to the conservative viewer, and to conduct a propaganda line about being fair and balanced, while in fact conducting itself as a proxy for it's conservative viewers, doing the yelling at the TV screen for them. The pschological effect of seeing this programming over time is to convince the user that the viewpoint presented by Fox is in fact fair and balanced, regardless of the content. When watching their commercials on how balanced they are, I find myself asking, "Does the lady not protest overmuch?"

I think a lot of viewers don't distinguish carefully between coverage that agrees with their current world view, and coverage that expands their world view. Because of this prominent viewer behavior, there is a market opportunity in the news business to sell news in flavors. Fox has the limbaugh conservative flavor. CNN has the intellectual dilletante flavor, the NY Times has the moderate liberal flavor, etc.

I personally think CNN does a better job of striving to educate their viewers, but even they choose which stories to cover. If the viewers want to watch stories about starving children in Iraq, but not about starving children in Mexico, well, we're not going to see a lot of those kids in mexico. There's a lot of stuff going on that you don't read about or see in american media.

Re:Play · 01-30-2003, 09:28 AM

I have had personal experience where media reporters/writers had their own conclusions of a situation, and did not want any facts that led anywhere else. I have also had headlines to an accurate article be totally the opposite of the article. When I confronted the reporter I worked with, they said "I do not do the headlines". Of course the headlines reflected what the reporter wished the article said.

I have also worked with some very good reporters and writers too. I agree with the earlier comments that sensational headlines sell papers, so just reporting something working well of somebody doing what they should do is not what makes people buy papers and watch the news.

CATCH AND EAT · 01-30-2003, 12:10 PM

COTR our own Oregonian Jonthan Brinkman tends to mislead and skew the view. (Threw that one in there for ya Skein)

I think fox saw and opening to counter CNN, CNBC and the likes. Media Liberals have controlled the tube for so long and conservatives had to listen or at least plug there ears when the myopic view of the Wolf Blitzers, Bernard Shaws, Chris Mathews and the like opened there mouths. I cannot stand any of the network anchors either. Rather, Brokaw, and Jennings usually make me ill. Since I no longer have anything but basic cable I watch the PBS broadcast of Jim Leher. I feel I can somewhat trust that broadcast. At least he has'nt given me cause not to trust him.

Oh yeah, I cancelled my subscription to the Oregonian too. Hope Leher stays fair and balanced.

Sea Nymph · 01-30-2003, 02:41 PM

What I hate about mainstream media is when they only give part of a story or spin the story to promote their political beliefs. CNN (Clinton News Network) usually provides good examples of this. Not to mention NBC (with Stone Philips) and ABC when portray gun owners as common redneck criminals. Fox claims to be fair and balanced when they clearly lean to the right.

A couple of tools I use to help make my mind up: 1. many different news sources. Example, if you read 7 articles from different sources (left and right) on the same topic, I use the information that is common with all. Some add to it, some take away from it but you will usually see some common data between them. 2. I expose myself to as many arguments pro and con I can and find on a certain issue. Must also mention, I come from a farming environment, served 8 years in the Army, so I tend to lean to the conservative side to start with. These things and what I truly believe to be right or wrong is generally how I base my opinion.

RvW · 01-30-2003, 09:45 PM

check this out

garyk · 01-31-2003, 10:54 PM

Well said Silver Hilton.

One of the biggest lies that's been sold through repetition is 'liberal media'. There's no such thing.

The mainstream media these days (all owned by huge corporations) is selling advertising and entertainment - hardly a stronghold of liberal ideals.

Furthermore, the quality of reporting has slipped as in-depth reporting tends to be an intellectual exercize - not entertainment.

The media these days tends to simply parrot whatever the last interviewee told it - rather than digging and analyzing.

Sea Nymph · 01-31-2003, 11:30 PM

That's pretty cool.

Here's one from the Right...

However I didn't see anything about "Boxgate". If the archives go back far enough I'll bet you could find something on the coverage of some of Clinton's gates though.

Kilgore · 01-31-2003, 11:46 PM

COTR,

I agree with much of your assertions. We indeed are to blame for much of what we see on TV and other media. The competition and the time pressure creates the atmosphere of frenzy, thus it's unreasonable to expect a quality and credible reporting. Another culprit is our short attention span along with our remote controls, which have created the current sound-bite journalism.

RvW · 02-01-2003, 12:39 AM

Nymph I cant get your link to work ???

I 'd love to get into a full fledged media bashing frenzy here, but I will keep it simple.

My nuttshell ideas surrounding the "boxgate" incident can be put in much simpler words than Peter potty mouth. (or whatever his name was at ZNet.com)

I think it was a clear and disgustingly perverse thing for the white house staff to cover "made in china" on those boxes, but it is to be expected.
What is profound in my opinion is that "what to be expected" doesnt carry through to the people we should expect it from... THE MEDIA!

Why was the "boxgate" a joke to CNN? is CNN afraid of offending thier liberal viewers with the truth?
Is CNN afraid it will not be welcomed to the whitehouse (or any other press conference) with a camera if it had geared the story as it SHOULD have been told..( "another lie with a smile from the Bush admin")

I feel severely foolish even listening to these people, and at a serious disadvantage when it comes time to discuss things such as "boxgate" with other so called intelligent individuals because I fear they will look at me with a genuine confusion and say "what boxes?"

Now I have another question, how am I labled a leftist when I examine the evidence in front of me and take it at face value.

Why is the liberal media liberal when it searches so hard for the truth yet has such a small audience for it?

Can someone please define my political influence or even my point of view, which way I lean, because I have no CLUE!! :grin:

Am I a "liberally conservative republicrat"?

[ 02-01-2003, 11:09 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]

Sea Nymph · 02-01-2003, 05:43 AM

COTR,

The address is http://www.mediaresearch.org/

Later
SN

Silver Hilton · 02-01-2003, 09:05 AM

Gary

I agree. In the day after this thread, I had the pleasure of reading people on this board bashing CNN for it's ****** liberal slant, and on another board for its' slavish repetition of right wing dogma. I suspect that if they are angering people on both sides of the political spectrum, they may well be centrist. Both groups were mad at Wolf Blitzer's coverage of Iraq.

I too find the Boxgate thing mostly deserving of a chuckle. I mean, lets maintain some perspective, here. Yes, its a pathetic statement of political cowardice. Yes, it's another example of spin control by the Bush administration. But it isn't a crime, and it isn't an injustice of the level of many perpetrated in this country all the time. So a said smile is an appropriate response, I think.

I think we can say about the media what Will Rogers once said about the government. "People usually get about as good a (media/government) as they deserve."

El Shaddai · 02-01-2003, 09:18 AM

SH- I could just as easily point out CNN's partial, unbalanced reporting on a variety of issues.

GK- Apparently you have never read the NY Times.....or watched Dan Rather add his .02......

The print and television media is dominated by liberalism as much as the radio is dominated by conservativism........

Silver Hilton · 02-01-2003, 09:31 AM

El,

I'll easily give you partial coverage - I think that's true of essentially all TV media, and it's really as much a flaw of the medium and the viewer base as anything else. You'd have to work to make me think that they were aligned with a broad liberal or democratic party aligned viewpoint. But, that said, I'm open minded on the topic. What makes you think that?

Again, my point is not they have a balance either way, or that they are the best thing since sliced bread. I merely suggest that a media source that annoys both the hard core left and the hard core right equally probably isn't trying hard to be aligned with either.

Smj · 02-01-2003, 09:32 AM

Heck, I tend to get more news from this board than I do from the tube. We have some very intelegent and well written people right here at ifish. When I watch the news programs on the tube I can sense the leanings and missing parts of stories and it makes me angry so I turn it off. I am able to make up my own mind and the discussions that happen here are usually balanced pretty evenly and allow me to do that.
So, keep up the good work guys and know that I very much enjoy and appreciate the debate that goes on here at ifish.

Smj

Silver Hilton · 02-01-2003, 09:35 AM

Here is an interesting study on the existance of a liberal bias of the media at large.

See it here.

RvW · 02-01-2003, 09:57 AM

Quote:

......the norms of "objective journalism" and the powerful corporate interests which own and sponsor the news media ensure that news content never strays too far, for too long, from protecting the status quo.

<font size="2" face="verdana,arial,helv">I'd sure like to hear the definition of "status quo"

[ 02-01-2003, 11:00 AM: Message edited by: cirrhosis-of-the-river ]