The News Media

[rahmota]

Ok after this deal with the COmcast hammer lady I was wondering if anyone else finds it interesting and slightly sad about how the media likes to sell the drama. Almost to the point where they seem to not care about doing proper research or at least edit things to slant the story one way or another or whatever will get the most ratings. Its bad enough that to get the whole story sometimes you have to look at four different channels/sources.

Like the same story reported on CNN, Fox News, My local gannet and clear channel news stations, the local newspaper, the city newspaper and the AP and Reuters online all carry a different slant. So to find out what happened you have to sort and sift and do your own research it almost seems like. Somethign a lot of people are not going to do. Either because they dont have the time for it or they dont have the desire to do so. I'll not comment on those who dont want to do it because it will challenge their beliefs.

[AFPheonix]

I'm amazed at how well people eat up whatever crap is shoveled at them by obviously slanted newscasts. It's scary, really.
But yes, I am sick of how sensationalized news has become. Especially when newscasts that have less than 30 minutes to cover a huge array of local and international news choose to devote entirely too long chunks of it to fluff like whatever show is coming on after or what Paris Hilton did recently.
This is why I really value NPR as much as I do. More so than any other station, they do bring pretty fair and balanced stories out, they cover a lot of stuff that you wouldn't necessarily hear otherwise, too.
Which reminds me, I need to re-up my membership with OPB.

[DesignFox]

I'll agree. But I think a huge part of the problem is that, let's face it, the drama sells.

You have to have money to keep a network/newspaper going. So let's face it. What are you going to show? Boring information that gets no viewership, earns no money and therefore kills your revenue...or entertainment...which gets ratings, gets attention and earns more sponsorship.

The almighty buck reigns supreme in America. Whatever gets it is what is going to get presented.

Until the people take an interest in actual information and stop watching the fluff, nothing will change.

Either that or there needs to be some strict deliniation between what is NEWS and what is ENTERTAINMENT and it needs to be strictly enforced and adhered to within the press community.

AND- whatever is considered news would need to be reported objectively. No slanting. No opinion- or if it is opinion, it should be stated as such with the opposite opinion also presented.

[Rubystars]

I'm curious about something now. What if the something is scientificially established beyond reasonable doubt, but there's still a sizable amount of the population that disagrees with it? For example, some people believe that creationism ought to be taught in science classes, even though it doesn't have a shred of evidence, and evolution is scientifically established from multiple lines of evidence.

In the interest of being neutral, shouldn't the newscasters support evolution by default? Or does the fact that a sizable population of people refuse to accept it negate that?

In more simple terms, let's say there was a sizable population of Flat Earthers, who demanded that flat-earth theory be taught in science classes and geography classes. Would the news be compelled to respect such a silly opinion, or would they be allowed to go with the science and still be neutral?

[Greenday]

The only thing that separates a theory from a law is that everyone agrees with a fact whereas some people don't believe in the theory. They both are proven true. It just depends on what everyone actually believes that determines whether it's a law or a theory. So if more people than not believed the world was flat, the news would say the world is flat because that would please the majority and get them better ratings, etc., even though it's obviously a load of crap.

[Rubystars]

Scientific theories don't generally progress to become laws. Think of it this way, gravity is a "theory", the theory of gravitation.

Most people aren't dense enough to start screaming about it just being a theory though.

[rahmota]

Yeah its definately a sad state of affairs. I recall seeing videos of the old cronkite and huntly brinkly news casts back in the day and they new how to do news without selling the drama. Nowadays the talking heads are just another kind of entertainer.

Either that or there needs to be some strict deliniation between what is NEWS and what is ENTERTAINMENT and it needs to be strictly enforced and adhered to within the press community.

If the government tried to do that do you realize how big an outcry there would be? Not to mention I'd be a bit uncomfortable about that as the one who controls the flow of information has a great deal of power.

But yeah there needs to be a lot more responsibility in the media and less greedy vulturistic concern over the almighty dollar. Maybe make it illegal for there to be commercials during the news or otherwise make it where a station couldnt make a profit off the news. Maybe it would force at least the video arm of the news media to become a bit more responsibile. Either that or clone the giants of the news and put them on instead of the big hair, shiney teeth talking heads on there now.

[protege]

I don't watch the news much at all. After having it on all day at work, I can't stand to sit through it at home

What pissed me off, is that the news gets interrupted over stupid things. For example, CNBC spent an *entire* day following Martha Stewart around the day she got home from jail. I think their time could have been spent better covering the economy, the situation in the Middle East...rather than watching some
spoiled rich bitch arrive home.

Then there's the weather. Locally, the stations just *love* to toy with people over this. They blow things *way* out of proportion just to get people to watch. Nearly every storm is seen as the "end of the world" which means people pack stores for salt, shovels, and other "necessities." I don't know about you all, but I've only been snowed in once...and that was the back-to-back blizzards of the early 1990s.

[Seshat]

The ABC (Australian Broadcasting Commission, I think) used to have a show called 'Behind the News'. It was targetted at high-school children (circa thirteen to seventeen) , and would show not only the news, but what had led up to it.

For instance, if BTN was covering a war, it would summarise the culture and history of the warring nations, what was known about the tensions in the area, and what triggered the tensions to erupt.

If BTN was covering an environmental protest, it'd explain both sides of the debate.

BTN made an effort to be unbiased. They knew they couldn't be - being human - but they tried.

If anyone knows of a news channel that does this sort of thing by default, I'd happily pay to subscribe to it.

[rahmota]

Protege: Yeah every thunderstorm is tracked by the ultimate doppler systems on the local channels.So if their system is the ultimate how can all three have the ultimate? And I've been snowed in 3 times in my life. Back in 79, back in the 90s and in 05/06 winter of.

And I agree its absolutely perverted the way celebrities get to fill up hours of airtime and pages of print but something important like oh declartions of war, economic policies, changes in civil rights and other important stuff gets shoved back a few pages.

Seshat: I'll join you in that. Sounds like an interesting program.

[IDrinkaRum]

Nah, the important stuff is trotted out to the front page when there are elections going on. (Is that cynical?)

[powerboy]

I like watching CNN, Fox News and news stations like that. They actually give a great amount of time to each subject, that they are talking about. I hate watching local news, because they only show the major stories for about 3-5 minutes & give crap like any celeb in jail or drunk about 30 minutes.