"The media"

[Papasito]

i just want to state for the record that once news became ratings based "entertainment" everything went downhill from there.

thank you. that is all.

[Diehard]

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.

So, you're saying you consider comedians and Glenn Beck to be "the news" and "the media."
My point exactly. It's such a catchall term that we need to be more specific, or people will tune you out. If you're angry at comedians for mocking Kucinich, that's not the same thing as, say, CNN "attacking him for no reason". Comedians and Glenn Beck have their place, but I'd never consider them "the media." Do you have any examples of a more mainstream news outlet attacking him for no reason, showing bias, etc.?

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "So, you're saying you consider comedians and Glenn Beck to be "the news" and "the media.""

Absolutely. Any medium used unethically to shape public opinion and steer events. Any other examples? You are kidding right? My work affords me much time, at times to take in a good deal of the "media", when I watched it anyway, I don't anymore.

Quote: "showing bias?"

In the case of Paul and Kucinich, one methodology to discredit, is don't talk about them at all. Same way the networks handled the war protests in DC and elsewhere. Here are two candidates that were actually speaking sense. "Balancing the budget", "Addressing trade" on and on. All things newsworthy and what is needed. No mention, matter of fact, one of the "news" outlets informed the Paul camp there was no room for him in the studio during the debates. Here is a man that was a pure contrast to others, like Hillary and Obama, neither with any real message, other than more of the same. He was not newsworthy? Did you happen to drive around Detroit and see the support in the form of lawnsigns for Paul? People wanted to see him in those debates. The networks knew by snubbing him, they were salvoing any chance that he may have had. Why would the media care what his views are? Aren't they there to just report?

[Jimaz]

....

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

....

Christian Science Monitor seems to have a [[the best?) reputation for being impartial. Does anyone here feel otherwise? If not, then that suggests it's at least possible for other outlets to be unbiased too.

[Diehard]

Any medium used unethically to shape public opinion and steer events.

Interesting definition. A straight dictionary definition would be the plural of medium, which is any means of disseminating information. Yours sounds more like the definition of "propaganda." Which is different than "the news".

Any other examples? You are kidding right?

No, I'm not. You claimed "the media" and "the news" were biased and attacked Kucinich and Paul for no reason, then used comedians and Glenn Beck as your examples. I responded that I [[and most people) don't consider comedians and Glenn Beck to be "the news." I thought it was hilarious when SNL had Amy Poehler playing Dennis Kucinich, but who in their right mind would call that "the news?"

My work affords me much time, at times to take in a good deal of the "media", when I watched it anyway, I don't anymore.

You haven't watched "the media" lately? Then how do you expect to be taken seriously when you make sweeping statements like "the media is biased"?

In the case of Paul and Kucinich, one methodology to discredit, is don't talk about them at all.

But you claimed earlier they were "attacked for no reason" - not ignored.

Same way the networks handled the war protests in DC and elsewhere. Here are two candidates that were actually speaking sense. "Balancing the budget", "Addressing trade" on and on. All things newsworthy and what is needed.

And you're saying there was no coverage whatsoever in the big, vast media? Then how did you hear about it? Were you there personally?

No mention, matter of fact, one of the "news" outlets informed the Paul camp there was no room for him in the studio during the debates.

Which news outlet? Please provide a link. Not saying it didn't happen, but I'd like to know more about it.

Here is a man that was a pure contrast to others, like Hillary and Obama, neither with any real message, other than more of the same. He was not newsworthy?

Absolutely, he was newsworthy. He's got a sizeable following of people who are very interested in his message. You, and them, managed to hear his message, so somewhere, some media outlet provided it to you.

Did you happen to drive around Detroit and see the support in the form of lawnsigns for Paul? People wanted to see him in those debates.

As did I.

The networks knew by snubbing him, they were salvoing any chance that he may have had. Why would the media care what his views are? Aren't they there to just report?

Are you sure it was the news networks who made that decision, and not the people organizing the debates? How do you know "the media" doesn't care what his views are?

[Diehard]

btw, I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative. I'm just hoping we can explore the theory in my first post:
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.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I thought it was hilarious when SNL had Amy Poehler playing Dennis Kucinich,"

And portrayed him in a most uncomplimentary manner - you thought it was "hilarious". Where were their negative or "hilarious" portrayals of Obama or Hillary? They were done jokingly, but did not attack their character so vehemently.

Quote: "You haven't watched "the media" lately?"

What little I've had chance to see by accident in doctor's offices, or over friend's houses, it seems to have gotten worse, or by distancing myself, it is much more clear.

Quote: "you're saying there was no coverage whatsoever in the big, vast media? Then how did you hear about it?"

Internet, one medium with little control, but rest assured, they are working on it.

Quote: " "news" outlets informed the Paul camp there was no room for him in the studio during the debates." " Which news outlet? Please provide a link. Not saying it didn't happen, but I'd like to know more about it."

This was a rather large story. For a day or two, and then swept under the rug.

Quote: "btw, I hope I'm not coming off as argumentative."

You're not and thank you for that.

[oladub]

An example of what I thought was an attack against Kucinich. In one of the Democrat debates, Kucinich was asked if he believed in flying saucers instead of asking him about something presidential. Thereafter, Kucinich was cartooned with flying saucers. This happened to Jerry Brown years ago and he never lived down the 'Governor Moonbeam' nickname. Its a form of media slander and innuendo meant to destroy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ802POn8N4

Quote: " "news" outlets informed the Paul camp there was no room for him in the studio during the debates." " Which news outlet? Please provide a link. Not saying it didn't happen, but I'd like to know more about it."

Fox 'news'. http://www.bradblog.com/?p=5523 What Fox did was establish criteria so he couldn't be in the New Hampshire debate. The article goes on to mention that ABC did the same to Kucinich. Unfortunately the YouTube link showing Hannity being chased by Paul supporters pelting him with snowballs has been removed.

[Thruster315]

What ever happened to report the news as opposed to being the news?

[Big Dog]

In a way, each one of us is the media. We can send lies and propaganda, all over cyberspace, if we choose.

[lilpup]

In a way, each one of us is the media. We can send lies and propaganda, all over cyberspace, if we choose.

You can, but you don't have the credibility that the major established organizations have acquired and accrued through the decades.

[Diehard]

Quote: "I thought it was hilarious when SNL had Amy Poehler playing Dennis Kucinich,"

And portrayed him in a most uncomplimentary manner - you thought it was "hilarious". Where were their negative or "hilarious" portrayals of Obama or Hillary? They were done jokingly, but did not attack their character so vehemently.

You haven't watched SNL in a while, have you? They don't "attack the character" of anyone, they poke fun at politicians and current events. It's satire. You should check out the skit where Fred Armisen as Obama goes over a checklist of everything he hasn't accomplished so far. It touched a nerve enough that CNN did a fact-check on it. Amy Poehler's Hillary was just plain goofy, and Hillary herself said she got a big kick out of it. You're not supposed to take it seriously. It's not the news.

Quote: "You haven't watched "the media" lately?"
What little I've had chance to see by accident in doctor's offices, or over friend's houses, it seems to have gotten worse, or by distancing myself, it is much more clear.

I think you just admitted you have very little knowledge on the subject.

Quote: "you're saying there was no coverage whatsoever in the big, vast media? Then how did you hear about it?"
Internet, one medium with little control, but rest assured, they are working on it.

This ain't China. We have this little thing called the First Amendment, and a whole lot of people with computers. Anyone in the U.S. who claims someone's trying to silence them is full of crap.

Quote: " "news" outlets informed the Paul camp there was no room for him in the studio during the debates." " Which news outlet? Please provide a link. Not saying it didn't happen, but I'd like to know more about it."
This was a rather large story. For a day or two, and then swept under the rug.

Looks like the post after yours answered that question.

One more question: You come to this board often enough to conclude that you're probably getting some information from it. Do you consider message boards such as this one "the media?" If so, as someone else just pointed out, when you add a post you're part of the media, too.

[Diehard]

What ever happened to report the news as opposed to being the news?

Another one of those broad, sweeping statements that means nothing without doing a thesis on it.
When Fox News created and organized the Tea Party rallies, then covered it and accused the other networks of ignoring it, well that certainly fits the bill. A straight story in the News from Sam Riddle's trial doesn't.
I'd still venture that 90% of the news is reported straight, without the media injecting itself into the story. But without a whole lot of study, there's no way to prove that, just like you can't prove that nobody's reporting the news anymore.
It's kind of like saying "music today sucks" and walking away.

[Diehard]

An example of what I thought was an attack against Kucinich. In one of the Democrat debates, Kucinich was asked if he believed in flying saucers instead of asking him about something presidential. Thereafter, Kucinich was cartooned with flying saucers. This happened to Jerry Brown years ago and he never lived down the 'Governor Moonbeam' nickname. Its a form of media slander and innuendo meant to destroy.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SZ802POn8N4

I cringed when I saw that moment in the debate. I like Kucinich a lot, and I really wish he would've laughed and said "that's a ridiculous question, and what does it have to do with national policy?" He tried to make light of it with the jab that more people have seen UFOs than approve of Bush, but it didn't work. In the end, I wouldn't blame the question so much as the way Kucinich answered it. It doesn't rise to "slander" by any means.
Obama handled the followup question really well - laugh, and say "I don't know if there's life outside Earth, but I'm going to concentrate on the life that's on Earth" - then steer the topic back toward actual issues.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "I think you just admitted you have very little knowledge on the subject."

Let me straighten that out for you, I used to be an avid watcher/ listener of TV, I finally figured out they shovel nothing but biased bullshit and social message and want no more of it. I quit watching TV over a year ago. It's been nice. I don't need some moron on Fox or MSNBC to do my thinking for me. Clear?

Quote: "Hillary was just plain goofy, and Hillary herself"

Yes, because Hillary was there. They made fun of her laugh, oh that was real damaging... "Do I really laugh like that? hehehe". Why didn't they do a skit where she lied about being shot at disembarking an airplane in Kosovo? Why didn't they do a skit about her pretending to be President when her husband was? It was so bad the speaker of the house had to call her down for it. Why didn't they do a skit about her lying to her campaign contributors saying she was continuing on, when it was impossible for her to win at that point, and the Clinton's were down 10-12 mil? They instead made fun of her laugh.

Quote: "Do you consider message boards such as this one "the media?"

No

Quiote: "check out the skit where Fred Armisen as Obama goes over a checklist of everything he hasn't accomplished so far. It touched a nerve enough that CNN did a fact-check on it."

If it's just a dumb show as you allege, why would CNN care?

Quote: "You're not supposed to take it seriously. It's not the news."

I take it's impact seriously, and you should too.

[mauser]

but hasn't it become such a broad, catch-all term that it's impossible to define anymore?

No. It is not a "broad catch all" when the entire media machine is owned by a very small group of companies. It becomes more consolidated every year.

[Hermod]

No. It is not a "broad catch all" when the entire media machine is owned by a very small group of companies. It becomes more consolidated every year.

We have a lot more television news sources now than we did fifty years ago.

Newspapers haven't consolidated so much as the number two and three newspapers in each city have gone out of business leaving a single paper. Even when papers are owned by the same company [[say the Tribune Company) they aren't the same ideologically. The Tribune-published Daily Press in Newport News is significantly different from the Sun-Sentinel in Ft Lauderdale.

If you are bemoaning the right wing talk shows on AM radio, they got on AM years ago when no one else wanted AM radio. Everybody had switched to FM-Stereo for their "tunes" and AM was a ghost town. Limbaugh moved into a vacuum and had success with it. The talk shows revitalized AM radio and made it viable. .

[rb336]

We have a lot more television news sources now than we did fifty years ago.

and who owns those sources? 7, maybe 8 multinational conglomerates.

1 company, clear channel, controls the best a.m. signals in detroit radio except for cklw and wwj [[not sure, actually, about wwj). if it is a signal choked in static or that is easily lost, it is more likely not clear channel [[although they do own 1310, which is a horrible signal)

[Hermod]

and who owns those sources? 7, maybe 8 multinational conglomerates.

Which is more than the three corporations which owned them in the 50s.

1 company, clear channel, controls the best a.m. signals in detroit radio except for cklw and wwj [[not sure, actually, about wwj). if it is a signal choked in static or that is easily lost, it is more likely not clear channel [[although they do own 1310, which is a horrible signal)

The signal is a function of the AM station license [[5,000 watt to 50,000 watt), the location of the broadcast antennas, and the quality of their equipment. You can't blame Clear Channel for the quality, or lack thereof, of the non-Clear Channel signals.

In fairness to Clear Channel, they offer a wide variety of programing formats when they control many stations in the same market. They try to reach every niche big enough to be profitable.

[Detroitnerd]

Which is more than the three corporations which owned them in the 50s.

Actually, the number of international conglomerates controlling much of the mass media has gotten smaller, as fewer companies own more and more media outlets. In 1983, Ben Bagdikian published The Media Monopoly, which revealed the fast-moving media conglomeration that was putting more and more media corporations in fewer and fewer hands with each new merger. It was updated through six editions [[through 2000), and with every revision they had a tighter group of media companies than before, reflecting just how much the major companies control. The first tier giants include AOL Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corporation, Bertelsmann, Vivendi Universal, Sony, AT&T, and General Electric. The nine or ten largest media conglomerates now almost all rank among the 300 largest firms in the world; in 1965, there were barely any media firms among the five hundred largest companies in the world.

[rb336]

Which is more than the three corporations which owned them in the 50s.

that is TV media. I am talking ALL media, newspapers, magazines, radio, broadcast and cable

The signal is a function of the AM station license [[5,000 watt to 50,000 watt), the location of the broadcast antennas, and the quality of their equipment. You can't blame Clear Channel for the quality, or lack thereof, of the non-Clear Channel signals.

I'm not. I'm blaming the licensing agencies for allowing one company to gain a virtual monopoly over the good signals

In fairness to Clear Channel, they offer a wide variety of programing formats when they control many stations in the same market. They try to reach every niche big enough to be profitable.

yes, they do. BUT they tend to dumb-down the content -- you know the old LCD trick

[Det_ard]

Clear Channel's Detroit AM stations are only 1130 and 1310. Hardly dominant media voices. And of course 1310 is liberal talk radio. That blows the theory that the ownership monolithicly dictates the editorial tone of the station.

760 Citadel
800 Chum
950 CBS
1130 Clear Channel
1200 Radio One
1310 Clear Channel
1400 Salem

Seven stations. Five owners. Big deal.

[Diehard]

Quote: "I think you just admitted you have very little knowledge on the subject."
Let me straighten that out for you, I used to be an avid watcher/ listener of TV, I finally figured out they shovel nothing but biased bullshit and social message and want no more of it. I quit watching TV over a year ago. It's been nice. I don't need some moron on Fox or MSNBC to do my thinking for me. Clear?

You're talking in circles. You sound like the people who protest a movie because someone told them it was bad, but they'll never see it for themselves. You're apparently getting your information from somewhere, if you have an internet connection. What are your sources of information? How did you come to trust them, but not the "morons" on TV [[which is also a very, very broad spectrum to dismiss in one fell swoop)? How do you know your trusted sources aren't biased, if you're not going out and seeking information from a variety of places? Only intellectually lazy people allow someone else to "do their thinking for them." Taking in the occasional news show isn't going to brainwash you if you don't let it.

Quote: "Hillary was just plain goofy, and Hillary herself"
Yes, because Hillary was there. They made fun of her laugh, oh that was real damaging... "Do I really laugh like that? hehehe". Why didn't they do a skit where she lied about being shot at disembarking an airplane in Kosovo? Why didn't they do a skit about her pretending to be President when her husband was? It was so bad the speaker of the house had to call her down for it. Why didn't they do a skit about her lying to her campaign contributors saying she was continuing on, when it was impossible for her to win at that point, and the Clinton's were down 10-12 mil? They instead made fun of her laugh.

Maybe you should get into comedy writing. You'd be a real hoot.

Quote: "Do you consider message boards such as this one "the media?"
No

So where DO you get your true, unbiased, trustworthy information? Cave paintings?

Quiote: "check out the skit where Fred Armisen as Obama goes over a checklist of everything he hasn't accomplished so far. It touched a nerve enough that CNN did a fact-check on it."
If it's just a dumb show as you allege, why would CNN care?

The point was in response to your allegation that SNL never portrays Obama in a negative light [[and how would you know that anyway, having thrown your TV out the window a year ago?). It was a negative skit about Obama, and people were talking about it, so CNN did a followup. That's what the big, biased, bullshit "media" does. It sometimes takes a closer look at the watercooler topics. But you wouldn't know that, would you?

Quote: "You're not supposed to take it seriously. It's not the news."
I take it's impact seriously, and you should too.

Which is why you should maybe allow yourself to watch every now and then, if only to see what people are talking about.

[Sstashmoo]

Quote: "You're talking in circles."

You're thinking in circles

[Diehard]

Actually, the number of international conglomerates controlling much of the mass media has gotten smaller, as fewer companies own more and more media outlets. In 1983, Ben Bagdikian published The Media Monopoly, which revealed the fast-moving media conglomeration that was putting more and more media corporations in fewer and fewer hands with each new merger. It was updated through six editions [[through 2000), and with every revision they had a tighter group of media companies than before, reflecting just how much the major companies control. The first tier giants include AOL Time Warner, Disney, Viacom, News Corporation, Bertelsmann, Vivendi Universal, Sony, AT&T, and General Electric. The nine or ten largest media conglomerates now almost all rank among the 300 largest firms in the world; in 1965, there were barely any media firms among the five hundred largest companies in the world.

That's troubling. It doesn't necessarily demonstrate an agenda, but it would stand to reason that the for-profit media has to mold itself into something that makes money, so it's going for the lowest common denominator.
The Internet, though, is still the Wild West and has almost an infinite number of voices. With the right mix of free speech and responsibility to the truth [[one can hope, right?) it could balance itself out eventually.