The News Media

[grannywils]

Following is an excerpt from something I read on a site called Philly.com. I had never heard of the site before and know nothing about it. But I was looking up something else and came across this tidbit on Mr. Agnew's famous four words, penned by Mr. Safire, one of my favorite wordsmiths. It is an old article on the passing of Mr. Safire in 2009.

 

There is more to the article for those interested. Here is the link: http://www.philly.com/philly/blogs/attytood/Nabobs_natter_about_the_passing_of_William_Safire_1929-2009.html

 

 

"Nattering nabobs of negativism"

 

It's such a memorable and jarring expression that we can almost forget why it was so important -- as the opening salvo of a political war that continues to this day. In an era -- this would be the late 1960s and early 1970s -- when the reality-based world was looking rather bleak, with new revelations about government spying and the White House waging secret military campaigns in Southeast Asia, it would be the Nixon White House that invented the strategy of not changing the message but instead declaring war on the messenger, the American news media: And William Safire

 

The rest of the article is well worth reading, and I would recommend it for those of you with any interest in the subject.

 

I was interested, however, in everyone's thoughts on the statement that this was the opening salvo in the war on the American new media. I must admit that I never really thought of it that way, but find an element of truth in that remark. I think back to the days of Edward R. Murrow or Walter Cronkite or newspeople who gave us what I believe was actual news. There are so many others, but my point is that whether or not they were biased, they certainly were not "entertainers", and at least one felt as though there were some facts being provided about what was actually happening in the world around us.

 

Now I have to fight with myself to watch, read or listen to any news media. And when I finally do, I have to begin sifting through the chaff in order to find the few grains of wheat. Is this really how it is supposed to be in a free country???

 

Anyway, I just thought I would put this one out here for discussion.

[pwnedbyscope]

This kinda reminds me of good morning Vietnam, the actual story not just the movie, anyone in power will do anything they can so silence anyone speaking out with things they find unsavory

[HeyYou]

In todays "media" (I hesitate to call it "news") ratings are what its all about, and their own particular political spin. When a news network has "fair and balanced" as part of its slogan, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be neither. The media moguls have just as much invested in washington, as the politicians do, and having the clout to thump someone soundly, repeatedly, ad nauseum.... in the 'media', can make or break political careers. The media knows that, and uses it. They each have their own particular "take" on things, depending on which side of the political coin they are on. I can remember when news anchors actually reported the news, as it happened, factually. And without whatever political spin was popular that day. One of the reasons I don't watch any of the networks any more.

[marharth]

This is pretty much impossible to fix considering the first amendment. Its going to be like this for a while. Edited June 27, 2012 by marharth

[Aurielius]

In todays "media" (I hesitate to call it "news") ratings are what its all about, and their own particular political spin. When a news network has "fair and balanced" as part of its slogan, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be neither. The media moguls have just as much invested in washington, as the politicians do, and having the clout to thump someone soundly, repeatedly, ad nauseum.... in the 'media', can make or break political careers. The media knows that, and uses it. They each have their own particular "take" on things, depending on which side of the political coin they are on. I can remember when news anchors actually reported the news, as it happened, factually. And without whatever political spin was popular that day. One of the reasons I don't watch any of the networks any more.

HY...now I know who you go to for impartial news...you channel Aleister Crowley..see he is neither right or left leaning :whistling:

 

http://i284.photobucket.com/albums/ll14/frugal_dougal/harry_potter/aleister_crowley.jpg

Edited June 27, 2012 by Aurielius

[Vagrant0]

In todays "media" (I hesitate to call it "news") ratings are what its all about, and their own particular political spin. When a news network has "fair and balanced" as part of its slogan, you can bet your bottom dollar that it will be neither. The media moguls have just as much invested in washington, as the politicians do, and having the clout to thump someone soundly, repeatedly, ad nauseum.... in the 'media', can make or break political careers. The media knows that, and uses it. They each have their own particular "take" on things, depending on which side of the political coin they are on. I can remember when news anchors actually reported the news, as it happened, factually. And without whatever political spin was popular that day. One of the reasons I don't watch any of the networks any more.

Kinda this. The thing that I've noticed happening more frequently is that news commentators have been taking a more activist role and trying to argue for or against some idea. Regardless of the merit of the argument, how it is presented, or how factually viable it is, it just isn't something they should be doing in their role. Period. But they do it usually not because of the ideals or results conveyed in the argument, but rather to resonate with the people who share similar sentiments, and in turn generate ratings. Not only does this lead to bias... But it also leads to an assumption that the message and intention of that argument is already being handled by someone who we should then support, pretty much assuring that nothing ever gets done about it since there will be a new, grand, cause the next week.

 

The system is not setup to allow answers to come forward, but rather just allow the discussion of answers which nobody ever acts upon (for good or ill). There are no citizens groups trying to encourage congress to fix our crumbling infrastructure, nor any fanatical Glenn Beck supporters devoted to removing the pawn of the Illuminati. And this lack of results is probably intentional.

[SilverDNA]

1st I want to expand vargant0's observation with some additional info what I think here is used and where it leads to

(this has so many aspects that it might get a bit confusing because I'm trying here to give each aspect a bit of light.)

 

What Vargant0 here describes is possible the "Distancing effect" also called "Verfremdungseffekt" or "V-Effect" (Link on Wikipedia) which is used in modern theater plays.

(Ab bit off topic but it might help in understanding the "Distancing effect". One of my favorite plays that uses the Distancing effect is "Andorra" from Max Frisch ((Link on Wikipedia) for a rough overview uses the Wiki link. I endorse this play greatly to anyone who has the chance to experience it on stage.)

 

on media directly:

The medias fire raptly information in the direction of the consumer (yes, I used this term because thats what they are thinking the people that are watching really are) and using the Distancing effect to manipulate it to go to the web sites of such to add comments that are often displayed at screen in TV or in online newspapers below the article one reads (a constant source of my daily lols, about cretins that add their 2 cents there.)

So the distancing effect isn't only used to spread a certain political view of the company that brings the media to the consumer, but also bind the consumer to the product if he /she likes the way of reportages it.)

A political, economical or natural catastrophe hunts the next and there is no time to reflect thoughtful well upon the matter, because the attention is already required for the next. So you have to go to the website to reflect and participate and be part of the self embodied sophisticated elite of the whole social body, we call society. (yes; I used mockery here because i have read again such comments today in the media's that where unqualified)

the best argument to justify why the media companies uses such methods can be foreseen if them media's companies are questioned directly, is probably in blaming the citizens to have ADHS so they can't concentrate well for longer time and they want to take it in account and help the ones that have ADHS, which is nonsense because they want to make money with adverts an a high profit for providing the news.

 

Personal Note: If you ask me above is a dance to the grave by arguments by claiming it is for the well of the people that we manipulate the people to pre-think what is morally right or wrong. (note to self: Funny how often works Of George Orwell either 1984 or Animal Farm show up as a reference here? Is it me that use Orwell so often or them that abuses Orwell's works so often to their ends?

 

Real journalism (with research of the facts) is only possible when it has fast results or has a large group of interested in the broad media world aside from scientific news magazines and specialized Blogs in the Internet. (All mentioned here, aren't have been influenced as well on manipulative matters)

 

The Politicians and Experts are aware of this and use it to their own ends to bring their own political views as charismatic as possible into the media's. (win/win situation for the medias and the politicians/experts)

 

In America, where a large part of citizens claim to have ADHS it can be (ab)used as a form of brainwashing which has been shown by some studies about deprivation of tortured saying the things torturous one wants to hear, (in the 50's 60's and 70's (Stockholm syndrome, I name here as example because it is commonly known and is one that was a direct result of the previous researches), I could even go farer back in time about the modern matter of manipulative medias, but I fear I would violate Goddwin's Law in this.)

 

In the end, it is up to everybody to decide how much manipulation oneself wants or is able to distinguish in the own awareness of manipulative medias.I'm just providing a little bit of expansion where further arguments can lead to. I personally ask myself often, "What do they really want from me, what do they gain, how do they want to archive this and with what measures do they use?", everywhere where I can gather information.

 

I hope I was helpful here on subject.

Edited June 27, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Ghogiel]

Editorial bias.

 

Large media corporations need to appease other corporations that are their advertising investors and shareholders. Part of that is promoting and looking after certain political agendas.

[SilverDNA]

Editorial bias.

 

Large media corporations need to appease other corporations that are their advertising investors and shareholders. Part of that is promoting and looking after certain political agendas.

 

Editiorial Bias ... No

I was referring to the one of the main causes of such many ADHS and how the media's would possible justify their actions.

Edited June 27, 2012 by SilverDNA

[Ghogiel]

I didn't quote you, I was replying to the OP. It's pretty simple really. The media is biased to promote an agenda. Corporate pressure and editorial bias exist. Editorial bias... Yes. One simply has to look at who own, run, fund and back that outlet, how it is structured, then lastly simply look at the content produced, who and what they support. Look at their sources they use and who funds those. It's has heaps of research and evidence to support this conclusion.