The need to read

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by PeterGustafsson

Wonder what role people would like to see me in, though.

Fashion advice and pop-culture news.

[Epee_Pox]

Can I be anonymous panelist #3?

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by oiuyt

Yeah, really. Why, oh why, can't we get back to the days of a hundred years ago when such paragons of journalistic virtue as Joseph Pulitzer (heard of the prize he endowed?) and William Randolph Hearst were responsible for what was reported?

-B

I didn't say there weren't OTHER times in history that the media was propagandistic. There was a fair amount of time in there, though, that investigative journalism actually broke stories (especially in the sixties and seventies).

-m

[SOA9286]

Really, this is what you get when you have to make everything a market...like the media. Capitalism, as great as it can be, is one of the most corruptable systems around. Subject anything to it, and theres a good chance that corruption may evolve and therefore hinder the quality of whats being produced- this case, in the quality of the reporting and what gets reported in general. It's a large play on who owns what and how everything is marketed, which is why the media should be taken with a martini that's heavily salted.

As far as the liberal slanting and what not..its only a liberal slant when you're not watching Fox, Joe Scarborough, or half of talk radio. All I have to say is...thank god for Don Imus.

[Larrison]

Originally Posted by SOA9286

Really, this is what you get when you have to make everything a market...like the media. Capitalism, as great as it can be, is one of the most corruptable systems around. Subject anything to it, and theres a good chance that corruption may evolve and therefore hinder the quality of whats being produced- this case, in the quality of the reporting and what gets reported in general. It's a large play on who owns what and how everything is marketed, which is why the media should be taken with a martini that's heavily salted.

As far as the liberal slanting and what not..its only a liberal slant when you're not watching Fox, Joe Scarborough, or half of talk radio. All I have to say is...thank god for Don Imus.

Hmm.... I think its the problem that the market has evolved, and is evolving again. Back in the ancient times of the 60's and 70's, the news was set up to be stately and in detail, with a lot of the news coming via the print media. Then someone figured out they could create a flashier, more visually attractive news by shortening stories, going with flashly graphics, and "punching" up a story -- reducing it down to the basics and going for the "grabber" where the public would see it and pay attention.

Ratings soared for those folks, since they stood out from the more dull, staid other newbroadcasts. And to stay competitive, all the broadcast news changed to go in this direction -- ending up with CNN Headline News as sort of the utilimate "sound bites" news show. But compared to 10 or 20 years, ago, everyone is doing sound bites.

At the same time, the industry ended up with sort of group think -- more a liberal (in the modern political sense), "progresssive" bent, and much more of a "crusading" Main Stream Media, with much more of sense they were the "right and true main stream". Unfortunately, with the convergence of almost all major news outlets driven into a very consistent editorial and production formation, they ended up with a very homogenized product, with little differentiation. This was an evolution, IMHO, driven by the market and external social forces. The news is typically highly processed and edited, primarily because this is a corporatized, mass-news media -- they don't have the time, space, or inclination to give in-depth news reporting given their need to compete in a mass media market. You know you're not going to get the full story, just an edited/ processed summary long on "story" and probably light on "information".

Now, we're seeing evolution again. The network who seemly provides a different approach to the news seems to be the Fox News network. (Note I'm not saying they are better or worse, but different.) They've intentionally tried to differentiate between themselves and the rest of the main stream media.

The next evolution looks like its going to be almost real-time internet media, evolving from the "blogs". The problem with these, is they are long on data, but haven't been filtered as much. You end up wading through a much larger amount of information, presented from a variety of perspectives with different biases, and have to sort and filter based upon your own viewpoints and analysis. In the future, I expect these to evolve more towards a real-time news & analysis media, not having the highly processed and abstracted news from current main stream media, and focusing upon multiple perspectives and analyses of news items, but retaining the near real-time immediacy of the blogs.

Where does the market play in this? I think the market concentration in the main stream media standards (network news, CNN, newspapers) is going to break apart somewhat. I think Fox has shown that a differentiated news product can be a success in the market -- and I'm a bit surprized we haven't seen more similar competitors come forwards. I think that the talk show radio shows and the blogs are showing there is a market for near-real time analysis and commentary on the news, so that I think we're starting to see competitors coming forwards in that area. The next phase I think is going to be a consolidation of some of the larger, more respected blogs into "news & commentary bureaus", with a focus on better analysis and real time data.

[SOA9286]

True, it is about growth. If you look at what's grown, it's the user's dependability on different types of media which initially spur this evolution. When TV started to make it big (as you state in the "ancient times" lol), you saw that people saw news faster and could take it in a whole other rate than what they were used too. Basically, the Vietnam war propelled TV journalism into another era. Then we have events like Nixon's whole foray into Watergate, and the Iran hostage crisis (Which is why we had Nightline with Koppel, who is now quitting and the show will presumably stop). All of these events furthered the need, or the idea of the need for media to be there fast. However, what happens when it gets to you faster? Like you said...the volume of the information intake will actually help deteriorate the information thats being taken in. It's a whole concept of "quality" that's explored in a lot of things related to capitalist market complex's. A book I read called "Zen and the Art of Motorcycle Maintenance" comes to mind...

[Inquartata]

Originally Posted by SOA9286

Really, this is what you get when you have to make everything a market...like the media. Capitalism, as great as it can be, is one of the most corruptable systems around. Subject anything to it, and theres a good chance that corruption may evolve

I rather think that the corruption thing is innate in human nature and doesn't require any help from an economic system to induce it to emerge...

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

I rather think that the corruption thing is innate in human nature and doesn't require any help from an economic system to induce it to emerge...

I would have to agree. I will say, though, that I do NOT believe we can't overcome that nature. One thing that would help greatly to overcome that is, as eskreemr and others have pointed out, a better educational system. That won't happen with this administration, though. it's in their interest to keep the educational system poor, so that the next generation of voters will be easily duped and/or educated with "Christian" morals (the quotation marks are there because I do NOT believe the morals of the Christian Right ARE Christian morals).

-m

[SOA9286]

I agree as well, but it always helps to have something to promote and nurture those "human beliefs". Setting up a competition based economy and adhering every form of society by no means hinders that nurturing.

[Soldier]

Originally Posted by epeemike81

I would have to agree. I will say, though, that I do NOT believe we can't overcome that nature. One thing that would help greatly to overcome that is, as eskreemr and others have pointed out, a better educational system. That won't happen with this administration, though. it's in their interest to keep the educational system poor, so that the next generation of voters will be easily duped and/or educated with "Christian" morals (the quotation marks are there because I do NOT believe the morals of the Christian Right ARE Christian morals).

-m

Nice threadjack from a discussion of corruption, to another jab at Bush.

Yes, we can overcome that nature, at times. I don't think education really has much of an effect on it, though. Some of the least-corrupted people I've ever met are the simplest, least-educated ones.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Soldier

Nice threadjack from a discussion of corruption, to another jab at Bush.

Yes, we can overcome that nature, at times. I don't think education really has much of an effect on it, though. Some of the least-corrupted people I've ever met are the simplest, least-educated ones.

hardly a threadjack, given that my first post was decrying the fact that his administration was getting away with FLAT OUT LYING. Agree or not, this thread STARTED with an anti-Bush point. I'd hardly call them "jabs," though, as that has the connotation of ad hominem attacks or not particularly meaningful complaints. I'd say lying to the public repeatedly and failing to fulfill this country's obligation to its children are pretty substantive points. I'm complaining about his policies and press releases, not making ad hominem attacks.

-m

[Soldier]

See, I call them "jabs", because I still don't see the proof of Bush intentionally lying. Besides, your jab is completely unrelated to earlier points, so it's still a threadjack.

[epeemike81]

Originally Posted by Soldier

See, I call them "jabs", because I still don't see the proof of Bush intentionally lying. Besides, your jab is completely unrelated to earlier points, so it's still a threadjack.

so, you think he just missed the one of the reports MAIN CONCLUSIONS that the problem was systemic? That's a fairly extraordinary belief...

At the very least his administration's claim is negligent.

-m

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Soldier

{snip}
Besides, your jab is completely unrelated to earlier points, so it's still a threadjack.

From 1st post in thread:

The administration is banking on the media NOT calling them on their lies and the American public not reading the reports.

From "threadjack":

That won't happen with this administration, though. it's in their interest to keep the educational system poor, so that the next generation of voters will be easily duped and/or educated with "Christian" morals....

Seems like a fair progression on the initial idea. You may disagree with it, of course, but hardly a threadjack. Not that there's anything wrong with threadjacks, of course....

--Philistine

[Inquartata]

We now present "Monty Pissandmoan and the Holy Fail", featuring Epeemike as Dennis the Narcosyndaclist Peasant:

Old Woman: "Oh, there you go bringing Bush into it again!"

Dennis: "That's what it's all about! If people would only realize---"

[Philistine]

Originally Posted by Inquartata

We now present "Monty Pissandmoan and the Holy Fail", featuring Epeemike as Dennis the Narcosyndaclist Peasant:

Old Woman: "Oh, there you go bringing Bush into it again!"

Dennis: "That's what it's all about! If people would only realize---"

To continue the scene.....

WOMAN: Order, eh -- who does he think he is?

ARTHUR: I am your President!

WOMAN: Well, I didn't vote for you. Well, how did you become President then?

ARTHUR: The Right Wing of the Court, [angels sing] their arms clad in the purest shimmering sable, held a vote, signifying by Divine Providence that I, Bush had won the vote. [singing stops] That is why I am your President!

DENNIS: Listen -- strange men lying in courts distributing votes is no basis for a system of government. Supreme executive power derives from a mandate from the masses, not from some farcical judicial ceremony.



I couldn't help myself....

--Phililstine