"The media"

[Diehard]

I saw this comment over on the Sarah Palin thread, and rather than threadjack that one, I thought it calls for its own:

The media is all powerful, even more powerful than the government in some regards.
They can make anybody, anything they want. ...The press, broadband and airwaves are all-powerful and do more to shape public opinion than the Government ever could.
The printing press is considered the most important invention in the last few centuries by many.

I've been pondering this for a while: What exactly is "the media" these days? Seems everyone's got a bone to pick with "the media," but hasn't it become such a broad, catch-all term that it's impossible to define anymore?
Everyone has a blog, anyone can go on a message board, anyone can rant away on video and post it on YouTube. Are they part of "the media?" How about, say, a newsletter put out by a extremist group? How about the crazy guy on the soapbox on the corner? For any viewpoint, there's a "media" that's on your side and a whole different "media" you can blame for everything that goes wrong.
There are attempts to categorize with terms like "mainstream media," "right-wing radio" and "the blogosphere," but I'm convinced there needs to be a whole new definition. It's too easy for people like Sarah, Kwame, Monica and any Joe Blow trying to dodge blame to say "it's the media's fault."
How do you define "the media?"

[Retroit]

"The media" are the news organizations that you don't agree with.

[Detroitnerd]

"The media" is like "the economy." It's presented as this one, monolithic thing, but it's neither. In fact, so often is "the media" treated as if it were an institution, we forget it is a plural of different mediums: newspaper, TV, radio, etc.

Basically, when somebody starts talking about the media, I tune them out. Just in the same way somebody who says they want to "grow the economy." I tune them out too. Any statement general enough to apply to all media is either unremarkable or untrue.

[Diehard]

I agree. It's always been a convenient scapegoat for lazy/guilty politicians, but in the old days it was more obvious who/what they were talking about - for example, a newspaper would publish an unflattering article, or an Edward R. Murrow type would ask questions, and politicians would rail against "the headlines." It was easy enough to know what was being referenced. People could then decide for themselves whether they believed the newspaper or the politician.
Today, though, when someone claims "the media is biased" or "the media is out to get me" you almost have to tune them out. Who can make such a broad claim with any kind of credibility? How much intensive study would be required to actually prove that? You'd have to pore through every TV news show, every newspaper, every magazine, every radio show, every blog, and every Youtube video to try to show there's a pattern.

[lilpup]

I think what a lot of people are tired of is the major media outlets - high viewership or circulation entities that in the past would have been considered reportorial, objective, reliable - that, along with their various spinoffs, seem to muckrake or jump on bandwagons with little apparant editorial thought or control beyond merely drawing numbers for corporate self-interest and/or bottom line purposes.

Blogs, message boards, and YouTube are easy to ignore because they, being newer, don't have the historic reputation of respect and credibility that the majors have/had. Gotcha journalism and screaming pundits quickly become tiresome.

[Sstashmoo]

"Media" = Anyone with a message, a listening group and an agenda.

"News" isn't just news anymore when they are steered by Corporations and special interests. When they no longer report the "news" and begin making the "news". They are simply propaganda machines.

Think Fox doesn't have an agenda, and guided by a biased opinion? Hannity et al get their marching orders. Glenn Beck says one thing one month, then does a 180 next month. Why is that?

Think MSNBC doesn't have an agenda, and guided by a biased opinion?

Why are some stories not reported?

Why are some inconsequential stories harped on about ad nausea?

Watch them and you can see the patterns quite clearly, you'll know their stance and opinion before they speak about certain subjects.

"Fair and balanced" my ass.

[jflick3535]

"Media" = Anyone with a message, a listening group and an agenda.

"News" isn't just news anymore when they are steered by Corporations and special interests. When they no longer report the "news" and begin making the "news". They are simply propaganda machines.

Think Fox doesn't have an agenda, and guided by a biased opinion? Hannity et al get their marching orders. Glenn Beck says one thing one month, then does a 180 next month. Why is that?

Think MSNBC doesn't have an agenda, and guided by a biased opinion?

Why are some stories not reported?

Why are some inconsequential stories harped on about ad nausea?

Watch them and you can see the patterns quite clearly, you'll know their stance and opinion before they speak about certain subjects.

"Fair and balanced" my ass.

Would love to know how "objective" you think the media was before fox news came along?

The only time you would see the word liberal in the new york times back then was when they were talking about Parliament but "right wing conservative" was thrown around like candy at a parade.

80% of all mainstream media vote democratic but sure they remain objective when they are on the job--Sure.

[Diehard]

"Media" = Anyone with a message, a listening group and an agenda.
"News" isn't just news anymore when they are steered by Corporations and special interests. When they no longer report the "news" and begin making the "news". They are simply propaganda machines.
Think Fox doesn't have an agenda, and guided by a biased opinion? Hannity et al get their marching orders. Glenn Beck says one thing one month, then does a 180 next month. Why is that?
Think MSNBC doesn't have an agenda, and guided by a biased opinion?

Interesting that you define it as "anyone with a message, a listening group and an agenda." In your opinion, are there any mainstream media outlets that are truly objective and don't have an agenda? Or is every news station and magazine trying to sell a point of view?

Why are some stories not reported?

I think in a lot of cases, the stories that don't get reported aren't some coverup conspiracy, but rather laziness on journalists' part, or they simply don't know about them, or they know but can't get the story for whatever reason. For instance, a lot of the newspeople in this town believed Kwame lied on the stand, but it took the leak of his text messages to get a story they could run with.
In other cases, a story the mainstream media "ignores" or "tries to cover up" is actually someone's theory that falls apart under investigation - the birther movement, for instance.
Not saying there's not an agenda, and I'm sure things don't get reported if they'd offend a big advertiser... but I think there's probably a lot of factors to consider.

Why are some inconsequential stories harped on about ad nausea?

Don't know. It is annoying, especially during an election season when it's obviously a manufactured "controversy". My guess is that people are talking about those topics at the watercooler, so the news feels like they have to cover it, even if there's no "there" there.

Watch them and you can see the patterns quite clearly, you'll know their stance and opinion before they speak about certain subjects.
"Fair and balanced" my ass.

In Fox's case, they're not even pretending anymore. But as long as they keep harping on this "educated elitists" vs. "Real Americans" theme, people will remain ignorant and trusting enough to eat it up.

[lilpup]

80% of all mainstream media vote democratic but sure they remain objective when they are on the job--Sure.

Good luck backing up that stat since we in the US enjoy a secret vote.

[oldredfordette]

Reporters do not decide what goes into the newspaper or on the television. Stories are assigned, then reassigned, then scheduled. Reporters do not write the headlines [[usually), reporters don't usually get the final say on how stories are presented. If you see a piece in a newspaper or a magazine with no byline, you know the reporter has withdrawn their byline, usually as a protest of some kind.

LIberal or conservative? It depends on who owns the "media" and who is running it. Not the lowly workers.

[Vic_doucette]

The "media" is about as liberal as the [[mainly) white, conservative, wealthy men that own it allow it to be.

[Haikoont]

It's interesting that I can tell who those of us are that work in the media. From this perspective, I can see that most of the people posting on this thread have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I can see that most of the people posting on this thread have no fucking clue what they're talking about."

You might wanna cut back a smidge on the caffeine.. Jus sayin.

[Crumbled_pavement]

I have a better question, how come people always fault the media for being biased when they don't like the outcome of a story but when they don't disagree with the outcome they automatically assume said biased source is being truthful.

Here's a simple example. Imagine the Detroit Free Press says that Granholm has done the best job a governor could do under the circumstances she had to deal with in the last 8 years. People would immediately cry that the Free Press has a liberal bias and is just lying to make a Democrat look good. Let's say the very next day the Free Press prints a story that says that since Obama has been president the standard of living for the average American has dropped by 10%. All of a sudden those same people that claimed that the Free Press was just liberally biased and you can't trust anything they print start hooping and hollaring about proof that Obama is a failure. Where's the scrutiny for the so called biased media at then?

Now I don't mean to hijack the thread and get off topic but it's just funny to me that anytime a person disagrees with what said media says that it is because the media is biased. However, if they agree with the media then the media magically is being truthful.

Funny, isn't it?

It's interesting that I can tell who those of us are that work in the media. From this perspective, I can see that most of the people posting on this thread have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

^^^Enlighten us then.

[gibran]

all you have to do is follow the money and ownership...I find the media woeful inadequate at times..not in all cases but in many...when you connect the dots or do your own research you find it is very inadequate...media is about two things money trying to shape influence for those who benefit from the money or shaping public debates to push owners agendas...Murdoch is only on example...it is deeper..read about the history of our papers and that should clear this up...

[oldredfordette]

"Paper Losses" by Bryan Gruley is a fine read on the subject. It describes how the JOA was brought to the Detroit papers and what we all suffered - workers and readers - as a result. And gives a big old clue as to why newspapers are in the state they're in right now.

[TKshreve]

In my humble opinion, I have been slowly learning over the years which media outlets have bias and which way they lean. It's pretty sad to have to do this, but that's life.

What I would like to know is which media outlets people here feel have the least [[or no) lean whatsoever. I have two that come to mind that I feel I can get a pretty reliable story from without having to cut and hack through the BS. The two that come to mind would be:

NPR newsradio
Nightly News w/ Brian Williams

I strongly feel that these outlets will give you all the top stories of the day and in a concise, summarized manner. My $0.02.

It's interesting that I can tell who those of us are that work in the media. From this perspective, I can see that most of the people posting on this thread have no fucking clue what they're talking about.

^ Ahhhh, some refreshing perspective from someone who actually has a clue.

[Hermod]

Newspapers and news magazines have always had bias. Many newspapers in the US were virtual party organs and you subscribed to the local newspaper which supported your party. Up until the past sixty years, the newspapers made no bones about their allegiance. Beginning in the 60s, newspapers began to pretend that they were "objective".

The TV networks were trying for the widest possible audience and prior to the sixties there was pretty much objectivity. ABC was probably a little more conservative and CBS was a little more liberal. The three networks had a virtual monopoly on broadcast journalism.

What has happened now is that cable [[first CNN then Fox) widened the choices that Americans had in consuming news fro the tube and the "opinion makers" at.the big 3 don't like it.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "It describes how the JOA was brought to the Detroit papers"

Orf, what is the JOA?

[rb336]

JOA - Joint Operating Agreement

this essentially unified the business aspects [[ads, production, distribution) of the News and Freep, but not the editorial side

[Detroitej72]

"News" isn't just news anymore when they are steered by Corporations and special interests. When they no longer report the "news" and begin making the "news". They are simply propaganda machines.

I would ask when did they ever not push an agenda. Take a look at how Hearst had a hand in the Spanish American War in 1898.

[Diehard]

I have a better question, how come people always fault the media for being biased when they don't like the outcome of a story but when they don't disagree with the outcome they automatically assume said biased source is being truthful.
Here's a simple example. Imagine the Detroit Free Press says that Granholm has done the best job a governor could do under the circumstances she had to deal with in the last 8 years. People would immediately cry that the Free Press has a liberal bias and is just lying to make a Democrat look good. Let's say the very next day the Free Press prints a story that says that since Obama has been president the standard of living for the average American has dropped by 10%. All of a sudden those same people that claimed that the Free Press was just liberally biased and you can't trust anything they print start hooping and hollaring about proof that Obama is a failure. Where's the scrutiny for the so called biased media at then?
Now I don't mean to hijack the thread and get off topic but it's just funny to me that anytime a person disagrees with what said media says that it is because the media is biased. However, if they agree with the media then the media magically is being truthful.
Funny, isn't it?

Most people with a strong opinion will believe whatever fits their opinion, and dismiss everything else.
I'm reminded of a funny thing James Carville said about right-wing opinion shows, though I don't remember his exact words: "The people who watch those shows use them for the same reason a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, not for enlightenment."

[Crumbled_pavement]

Most people with a strong opinion will believe whatever fits their opinion, and dismiss everything else.
I'm reminded of a funny thing James Carville said about right-wing opinion shows, though I don't remember his exact words: "The people who watch those shows use them for the same reason a drunk uses a lamppost - for support, not for enlightenment."

I agree with you. So the question becomes, is it just that the media is biased or are the viewers just as biased? If the viewers are just as biased then they have a lot of nerve to complain.

[Diehard]

I'd say some media are biased, and some people are biased.
Some in the media are lazy and do only the "easy" stories. Some have suffered so many cutbacks they can't afford to cover the news the way they should.
Some people are lazy and won't make the effort to inform themselves on an issue, so they latch onto someone else's opinion and dismiss anything that doesn't support it as "biased" or "lies".
Some in the media are competent and want to do their job well, but are stuck working for idiot bosses. Some of those bosses are skittish about anything that might offend their corporate masters or the advertisers that keep them in business.
Some in the media have resigned themselves to covering stupid stuff that brings in ratings [[like celebrity news) rather than important stories that viewers will tune out if they're too complicated. Some of the readers/viewers who complain about the lame coverage are just as guilty, since that's what they choose to watch.
Some viewers/readers believe in conspiracy theories and are convinced the reason they never see their "stories" covered in the mainstream media is because the media is in on the conspiracy. There's no reaching those people.
So, yeah, I believe it's complicated.

[Sstashmoo]

""JOA - Joint Operating Agreement

this essentially unified the business aspects [[ads, production, distribution) of the News and Freep, but not the editorial side""

That's making my agent orange act up. Cohesion and conspiracy thought running rampant.

There is definitely something to the "direction" of the news when they seemingly attack a Presidential candidate for no apparent reason. The treatment of Ron Paul and Dennis Kucinich was totally unacceptable. Every comedian used them for fodder in their monologue. Glenn Beck's ambush of Ron Paul should be concern for us all, here is a man running for one of the highest offices in the world being attacked by some jerk on cable news. The "media" should simply report on events and leave their f'ing opinions and bias out of it.