posted
Just because morality doesn't appear in Time Warner's profit margin's doesn't mean that they shouldn't be held accountable for what they sow, be it good or evil.
posted
Since most media is an artform of some kind, it's not surprising that the "artists" in charge put their perspective on things. The job may be to sell advertising, but there's no robot in charge; those are real people.
posted
The media has a great deal of power, and it's foolish for people to not recognize that. Any message broadcasted on tv has the potential to reach millions of people and make an effect on them. Sometimes these effects are positive, sometimes negative, and sometimes neutral. There is nothing wrong with blaming entities for doing harm or praising them for doing good. If that entity is the media, then so be it.
Posts: 1947 | Registered: Aug 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
I disagree with that. Media is art. Art that's used to sell something is still art. Art that's used for nefarious purposes is still art.
Posts: 407 | Registered: Jul 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Don't say that mph, or the newest postmodern trend will be medialess art.
"It's an intuition piece. You stand here and try to figure out what I was trying to say without the unavoidably biased presence of physical media..."Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
I thought Po-mo was clear that what the artist meant is absolutely irrelevent. So wouldn't it be, stand here and think of something profound, then realize it's not profound at all because the meaning only exists in a transitory fashion during this sensory experience?
But then, I never did really understand po-mo.
Posts: 26071 | Registered: Oct 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
I think the entire philosophy behind postmodern art is that you take yourself seriously long enough to land a gig at a gallery and then you stick it to the Man.
Posts: 8504 | Registered: Aug 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Ah, right. And then, 20 years later, you have to bemoan the fact that you sold out while nibbling caviar on toast at a benefit for homeless cats.
posted
oh, is that what's going on? Okay, silly me. I guess I missed that memo - after three years at a newspaper, I should have known my job is not to put news articles on the pages, it's to fill the pages with whatever after the all-important ads are placed. I'll have to do better. Posts: 2034 | Registered: Apr 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
Does the recent snafu with Dan Rather and CBS damage the image of an unbiased news media?
I say no. It damages the idea of Rather as an impartial reporter (as if), and hints that CBS News may have an agenda larger than dissemination of information, but I'm not going to boycott their station because of it.
Heh. They probably wouldn't notice if I did.
Posts: 14554 | Registered: Dec 1999
| IP: Logged |
posted
Having spent a decade as a reporter and editor, I've got to say that media isn't supposed to be purely about advertising. Advertising does pay the bills, but without good journalism, there's no readership which leads to no advertising.
Or at least that's how it is supposed to happen.
But lately, on many levels of the media, sensation outweighs truth. Celebrity overshadows substance. From E! Television to talk radio, there's less emphasis being placed on hard news and the legwork that goes into it.
Dan Rather is the most recent victim of this. But one must remember that it wasn't just him that pushed through the National Guard records story. He didn't take the time to verify the records, but also a whole staff working with him didn't check for forgeries. The story got ahead of the proof.
He's not the first, or the only one, recently. Heck, Pierre Salinger, a once-widely respected journalist, ruined his storied career by believing an internet hoax that an airliner had been shot down off of the New York coast. He simply didn't do the legwork to verify his story and it blew up in his face.
Heck, the Gray Lady, the New York Times, even went through a huge scandal when it was found one of their writers had pretty much lied about every story he had written.
The sad thing is, that in this day of instant news, a hyperly voracious news public, and a veritable sea of publicists out there, publishers and producers are cutting corners to get the stories to the people.
I'm hoping that this Dan Rather situation shakes things up, however. Credibility is something that once lost, kills a journalist's career. And in the case of an anchorman, may kill an entire news organization's credibility. Once the credibility goes, people quit watching or reading or listening. And when the audience walks away, so goes the advertising.
That is, if anyone in the public really cares anymore. It seems that we, as the consumers, don't really mind if we are fed on cotton candy and soundbites.
As the great journalist H. L. Mencken said, "You can't go broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public."
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
quote: But why should they care about doing a good thing?
Um, I'm not sure what you mean by this, Kama, but I'll respond anyway.
I try to do good things for myself and for others because it's the right thing to do. But I don't know if that's what you meant.
Could somebody answer me a question? How much responsibility does Dan Rather have regarding the news stories he "reports" on. I've never considered him to be a real reporter -- I always assumed that he didn't do much besides read the stories that real reporters wrote. How much of this is true?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Thor, Sopwith, very good points both. I agree that this is not how or what it should be, but has been becoming more and more what it truly is.
Posts: 1170 | Registered: Jan 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
MPH, my feeling is that Dan Rather should, sadly, shoulder most of the responsibility.
Rather isn't a journalistic neophyte, he's been in this business for longer than most of us here have been on the planet. He's known the rules and also knows that the first rule a journalist lives by is: CYA -- cover your ass. Before anything goes to print or public, you have to get your story straight and make darned sure your sources are telling the truth.
Mr. Rather should have done that and he has a whole staff of folks who could do the legwork for him. But they didn't and he ignored all of his experience that should have told him to check, double check and re-double check a story of this magnitude before it hit the streets.
He dropped the ball, and like I said, he's been around long enough to know all of this. And when you're the anchorman, put in a position of trust by both the network and your viewers, you have a duty to the truth.
Rather made a mistake that many journalists do at some point in their career. He made his at the height of his career. Sadly, the fall he will take will be from that height. There is no come back from that level of shoddy work at such a high level of trust.
Remember, Geraldo Riveria ruined his serious career after the Al Capone's Vault incident. And that was a much, much smaller gaff, and one where Riveria honestly could say, "How was I to know?"
Posts: 2848 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
It's hilarious to watch grown men and women rant and rave about how bigotted Religious people or Religion is.
Uh.
Religion has ONE JOB.
The salvation/redemption/bettering of it's members and give them a rule where with to judge themselves.
That's it.
It's not there to make you feel better about yourself or change it's views to accommodate wrong doers, it's there for YOUR benefit.
Our politicians are ELECTED by the People to "represent them" and their wishes for government, not their own agendas or force their views upon the majority.
What do they do?
They get blamed for trying to do what the people want.
Think more thoroughly your attack before you post it up there.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
posted
But my question is this -- is Rather actually a journalist anymore? I honestly don't know.
A few months ago, Spike TV (the first network for Men) tried having some little news updates during the commercial breaks. The newscasters were two very attractive young ladies. I had no doubt that they were chosen because 1) they were young and beatiful and 2) they could read a news report clearly.
How different are they from Rather and his ilk? Instead of being chosen for their sex appeal, is he chosen for his credibility appeal? Does his background in journalism really affect how well he can read stories on television? Does his journalistic experience affect his current job at all?
I really don't know. Is he an acutal journalist, or just a talking head?
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Well, yes, mph, but their point is to make money, not to do the right things. There's no reason to care about morality.
Posts: 5700 | Registered: Feb 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Silverblue, I don't think that I can agree with you.
I used to work in print journalism (newspapers) for several years, including a large daily.
While I agree that media's primary means of support is advertising -- I don't think that equals being it's only purpose.
Newspapers (and broadcast journalism) could not exist without advertising -- that much is true. Subscriptions don't do squat in overall costs -- advertising is king of the $$$$. It is what keeps them afloat, what allows them to do whatever non-advertising stuff they do, and often times advertising (or the companies that advertise) have a huge say in how the media presents itself.
So media is somewhat controlled by advertising (monetarily) but I disagree that this equals its primary or only purpose...
quote: Well, yes, mph, but their point is to make money, not to do the right things. There's no reason to care about morality.
There is always a point to care about morality. If they don't care about morality, then they deserve to be blamed for the evil they do.
Corporations are not faceless juggernauts that have an instinctual drive to run over the little man. They are organizations made up of human beings who each, every day, make decisions that affect how that company does buisness. A company doing evil things either has key employees who are doing evil things themselves or who are ignorant of the effects their actions are having.
Posts: 16551 | Registered: Feb 2003
| IP: Logged |
posted
Also, if the sole purpose of JOURNALISM is to "SELL COMMERCIAL ADVERTISING" as has been put forth here...
Then where does "Objectivity" come into play.
I for one have pretty much seen that there is bias in all media.
Fox is as biased as CBS, NBC and ABC.
Anyone who I think is stupid enough to think you can have organizations run and filled at all levels of power by people with very liberal biases is going to be OBJECTIVE?
That's like claiming Religions are Objective about Atheism.
It's absurd.
It's like claiming the Tobacco companies are objective about smoking.
Sorry, If CBS, NBC, and ABC are objective, then so is Al Jazeera and CBN.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Art is something as personal as an individual human being. True art will be created because it must be created by the maker.
What I think people perceive "The Media" is not art, it has it's artistic moments, but for non news shows it's ALL about money. Everything starts out with money as the #1 driving factor.
In the news, it is ALL about ratings. Which means money. So all news loyal to their revenue.
Our government is supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people, but it is not.
Corporations and Big Money factions are now in power in our government and the people are left out.
quote: oh, is that what's going on? Okay, silly me. I guess I missed that memo - after three years at a newspaper, I should have known my job is not to put news articles on the pages, it's to fill the pages with whatever after the all-important ads are placed.
If you work for the media, that does not mean that you can't TRY to do a good honest job that benefits the people, but overall you are there to sell NEWSPAPERS.
quote:Does the recent snafu with Dan Rather and CBS damage the image of an unbiased news media?
Is there anyone who believes that there is an unbiased news media?
A million media workers who don't let their own personal opinions into their work? Impossible.
Dan Rather screwed up royally. Totally wiped out a long and reputible career in one day.
Does it really merit 24 hour discussion on Fox two weeks later?
quote:Having spent a decade as a reporter and editor, I've got to say that media isn't supposed to be purely about advertising. Advertising does pay the bills, but without good journalism, there's no readership which leads to no advertising
Tabloid journalism has become the food of the day.
Sensational Media has become the good journalism of the day.
How often is Paris Hilton in the News?
Slam Dan Rather all you want, his wrong deed is not wanting and doing his best to get Bush out of office, it's that he pushed something false as the truth.
Do you think Dan Rather has any more of an Agenda at CBS than Bush's Cousin who runs the News Division at Fox???
This has polarized America, so i am not suprised when the "news media" ends up leaning one way or another.
We have anhiliated the middle.
No more white only red and blue.
quote: Why did he leave MOVIES out of MEDIA. Is it media or is it Art?
Is a documentary Media or Art?
Is F9/11 solely propaganda media or is it art?
What is art is in the eye of the beholder.
What is pornographic to some is art to others.
I left movies out of art, because movies are each based on an indivual case scenario.
Movies are like Novels to me.
Most cases they remain Art if the filmmakers created a great honest movie.
If it's purpose was to make money or win awards, it ain't art.
If a Documentary is trying to sell something it's media, like ferenheit 9/11, it was media, something like "The Basketball Diaries" or I forget what the great 1992 baskeball documentary's name was about following the two kids who thought they'd grow up to be basketball stars, is art.
quote: What is pornographic to some is art to others.
Because all people define all words differently.
To me, Pornography is people having sex for other people to watch.
That's porn. Penis in the vagina? Porn. Penis in the Mouth? Porn. Penis in the Butt? Porn. Vagina on the Vagina? Porn. Masturbation? Porn. Mouth on the Vagina? Porn.
Pretty much a Penis or a Vagina engaged in anything sexual is porn.
Porn is disgusting.
Modern porn is as bad as anything in the city of Saddam and Gahmoreh.
quote:Remember, Geraldo Riveria ruined his serious career after the Al Capone's Vault incident.
How could anyone ever forget?
"A coke bottle, possibly drank by al capone"
quote:"Fools blame Religion"
It's hilarious to watch grown men and women rant and rave about how bigotted Religious people or Religion is.
Uh.
Religion has ONE JOB.
The salvation/redemption/bettering of it's members and give them a rule where with to judge themselves.
That's it.
So when the Catholic Church bludgeoned and murdered 500,000 "witches" to better mankind?
You sound like someone who considers RELIGION to be Equal to Jesus Christ, God or the Holy Spirit.
Religion has become a middleman, charging far to high a price to give away something they don't own.
Religion is Not Jesus Christ.
Jesus's Job was to save us.
Job done. Mission accomplished.
Religion sometimes serves the people, sometimes serves itself.
quote: Anyone who I think is stupid enough to think you can have organizations run and filled at all levels of power by people with very liberal biases is going to be OBJECTIVE?
I say that all media is biased and cannot be objective.
The media over all has a liberal tilt, much like the Gun Industry, The Military Industry and the Energy Industry has a very, very, very religious conservative tilt.
You find more conservatives working for television than you do liberals working for Smith & Wesson or Halliburton.
posted
There can be only one solution to all of this.
Lets remove the $$ for the media and all news services.
It simple.
Total censored, controled, un-free, press.
Yeah, yeah, I know, unconstitutional. Hey, Franklin had a big hand in writing that constitution and he was the freakin media mogul of his day. Can we be sure he was not more worried about his "Penny Earned" than about your "right to know?"
Of course not.
Here is what a controlled press can do for us.
1) No more bad news. Everyone complains that the press shows only the bad stuff, never the good stuff. When was the last time you got a story on the First Ladies Prize Winning Wild Prairie Project, or how many roads and highways are NOT congested with traffic?
Today there was no earth quake in California.
There was no forest fire in Montana threatening homes.
There was no Hurricane destroying Florida.
But do we hear about that?
No!
Do you realize there are parts of Florida that have not been hit by any Hurricane yet this year? They may not be big parts, but...
Put the government in complete control of the press and you will hear all the good news. And that has to be good for our stress levels.
It will save lives by reducing the number of heart attacks each year.
And that will help with our medical system crisis.
2) No more hidden bias in the news. Did people in the Soviet Union fear a hidden bias in Pravda? No. It was blatant and obvious. You accepted it and moved on. None of these games about what was said, what was implied, or how it was said. If a government run news agency said France was full of idiots, we would know not to believe them.
When an ABC reporter implies this is what Rumsfeld said we aren't sure what to think of the French.
3) No More Indecencies on TV. A wardrobe malfunction will result in being fired, with real fire. Everything will be on a 10 day delay, during which time a focus group will watch the programs and thier answers will determine what will be allowed.
4) Better tv/radio programing. It will be guaranteed 1000% better. That is because those who run the media will be the ones determing what is good and what is not.
5) No more mud-slinging political ads. Heck, you won't even see any ads from "those treacherous evil hate mongers" who choose to run against the powers that be.
6) We can improve the economy. Much of the economy is built on guestimates of future performance. If the owners believe the economy is doing better, they hire more people and order more goods, hence creating a better economy. If they believe the economy is doing worse, they spend less and the economy does worse. If we keep telling them its getting better and better, they will believe us and continue to invest in making it so.
Hey, it worked for World Com and Enron and....
So what do you say. Want to sign my petition to ammend the constitution? I'll be happy to be the new Media Czar. And I promise you: Your home team will win every game, The Crime and Violence will go down (in being reported), and only the good Simpsons episodes will be allowed to air.
Posts: 11895 | Registered: Apr 2002
| IP: Logged |
posted
Hmmm, Dan. All I'm arguing for is a more status-aware product.
Must that lead to state-run media?
I was sorta going for the "nation of informed skeptics" myself, rather than jumping on the unrestricted pendulum thing.
Posts: 2919 | Registered: Aug 2004
| IP: Logged |
quote: Our government is supposed to be of the people, for the people, by the people, but it is not.
Corporations and Big Money factions are now in power in our government and the people are left out.
You forgot to mention it's also controlled by the Supreme Court (non elected officials) and special interest groups like the ACLU and others who don't care what the majority want. They want socialism.
Posts: 1533 | Registered: Sep 2004
| IP: Logged |
Regulating energy companies was leading us down the hell road to socialism, and now that we have deregulated them, pure freedom!
Bill Clinton's Tax the Billionaires policies were destroying out economy and had the United States on The Brink of Socialism, but God put George W. Bush in office, and now we have ten years of big tax cuts for Billionaires, Hello Freedom and Beautiful Economy!
Remember 20 years ago when one company was only allowed to own one television station? Socialism was about to infect everything! Hello Freedom! Now we've got Great Corporate Entities who can lead us to liberty by owning CBS, ESPN, MTV, VH1 and 32 other channels! plus 12 newspapers, 52 radio stations, 3 blimps and 15,000 billboards!
Remember when Diversity in music mucked up your radio? Good by socialism HELLO Clear Channel! Clear channel owns 72% of all radio stations and 80 of billboards! Hello FREEDOM!
Posts: 2752 | Registered: Feb 2001
| IP: Logged |
Printer-friendly view of this topic
![[Smile]](smile.gif)
![[Wink]](wink.gif)
![[Dont Know]](graemlins/dontknow.gif)
![[Big Grin]](biggrin.gif)
![[Confused]](confused.gif)
![[Grumble]](graemlins/grumble.gif)
![[Hail]](graemlins/hail.gif)
