How Reliable is the Mainstream Media?
- Thread starter Diana Hignutt
- Start date
it's funny that the reflexive sort of condemnation (and not unearned, mind you) is one of the few things both the right and the left agree on.
but, as with most things that garner immature pejoratives from both sides ("lamestream media", "M$M", etc), it's often oversimplified and is saddled with no small amount of projection.
mainstream media is no monolith, and each outlet is an amalgam of its ownership, the personalities inherent in its management, the selection of its editorial staff and so on.
ultimately, media are about one thing: perpetuation of the business model.
but, as with most things that garner immature pejoratives from both sides ("lamestream media", "M$M", etc), it's often oversimplified and is saddled with no small amount of projection.
mainstream media is no monolith, and each outlet is an amalgam of its ownership, the personalities inherent in its management, the selection of its editorial staff and so on.
ultimately, media are about one thing: perpetuation of the business model.
I used to buy both Time and Newsweek - that way I got all the facts and could make up my own opinion. But I think I agree with William in a way - whichever side is getting bashed by facts will claim the media is biased...
Some of it isn't bias at all, but rather the very short deadlines under which the business model continues to operate. If those were scaled back a bit, they'd run the risk of getting scooped by someone else. Thoroughness and accuracy be damned.
Well what can't be accused of that? Since it applies to everything its trivial in practice as an explanation of anything in particular.
As the toad article points out:
The system is necessary because the treatments that help make city water safe for people would be lethal for the toads.
by the same token, the treatments that make one systematically distrust all media are lethal to rational thought.
Last edited:
Most who have taken this poll do not seem to agree with this position.
Viritually all mass media are own by corporations that do not have the people's interest at heart.
But you are sure, that since the media mentions it, there are no toads in Africa?
And its in the people's interest to be told that they are the helpless victims of governments, media, fungi, herbicides and aliens?
If they are, yes. People deserve the truth, no matter how unpleasant it may be. Yes, I believe that.
Oh, and helplessness is only a state of mind.
Last edited:
Several things wrong with it ..
with 24/7 (non)news available there is too much of a rush to get there first. Important facts aren't uncovered yet, speculation gets away masquerading as fact for while etc
Editors edit things they don't know enough about to be editing them
They don't read what is front of them (going back as far as my press releases in viet nam (as miltiary, not reporter) the facts disappeared somewhere)
Too many writers and not enough reporters
and then there is the tendancy to report what you want to see rather than what is there (that's the slant)
While news reporting is still an advertising media, it will be subject to what owners think/know the advertisers want the public to see.
with 24/7 (non)news available there is too much of a rush to get there first. Important facts aren't uncovered yet, speculation gets away masquerading as fact for while etc
Editors edit things they don't know enough about to be editing them
They don't read what is front of them (going back as far as my press releases in viet nam (as miltiary, not reporter) the facts disappeared somewhere)
Too many writers and not enough reporters
and then there is the tendancy to report what you want to see rather than what is there (that's the slant)
While news reporting is still an advertising media, it will be subject to what owners think/know the advertisers want the public to see.
If it's based on real science, not junk science or opinion, yes.
Can't count on those on a crusade or out to be sell a book to be that responsible, can we?
We're more or less victims of what we don't know and won't try to find out.
I'd rather have a pack of opposing, slanted viewpoints than a monolithic slanted viewpoint.
As it is, you can filter stories through multiple sources, apply basic critical thinking, and hopefully get something close to what actually happened out of the matter.
As it is, you can filter stories through multiple sources, apply basic critical thinking, and hopefully get something close to what actually happened out of the matter.
MacAllister
'Twas but a dream of thee
Staff member
Boss Mare
Administrator
Super Moderator
Moderator
Kind Benefactor
VPX
Super Member
Registered
- Joined
- Feb 11, 2005
- Messages
- 22,010
- Reaction score
- 10,707
- Location
- Out on a limb
- Website
- macallisterstone.com
Maxx, would you like to actually make an argument, rather than just sneering at everyone on every single thread I've seen you post on, so far today? Because it's quickly becoming extraordinarily unpleasant to have to even read your posts. You've not said a single thing that's particularly helpful, and mostly it makes you sound like a boor -- and not, as I suspect you intended, like the smartest and most cynicalest kewl kid in teh room.
Media outlets report stories giving the political/social slant of their corporate owners. There really is no truly impartial media source.
Or the slant of their private owners.
One of my favorite sources for weird news about tech has a suspiciously slanted viewpoint toward the technological singularity being a certainty.
Which is odd, considering it's called THE SINGULARITY HUB.
One of my favorite sources for weird news about tech has a suspiciously slanted viewpoint toward the technological singularity being a certainty.
Which is odd, considering it's called THE SINGULARITY HUB.
- Joined
- May 8, 2010
- Messages
- 15,903
- Reaction score
- 4,652
- Location
- In a house
- Website
- vincentmorrone.com
We all also need to consider the rootsd of the idea of a Mainstream media". While not the first to use the term, Fox News cooked it up as a means to make themselves look more rebellious. But that gimmick has lost its steam in the last few years (kind of hard to condement mainstream media while atr the same time harp about how you;re one of the most watched (i.e. mainstream) media outlets.)
It was a novel gimmick until everyone especially on the right realized that Fox was every bit as one-sided as all of the other media outlets.
My stance is and has been for some time that there are far better ways to gain information. and it requires relatively little work. The internet is a glorious thing. nothing is hidden if you know where to look. We don't need cable news outlets to decide what we will and will not see anymore. I've said it for awhile: People who solely watch MSNBC or Fox News do so not to become informed but to be fed what they want to hear. More power to them. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
for the rest of us, a few simple clicks of the mouse will grant us access to all the news of the world. And we should not take that for granted. As maxmordon said, imagine being in a place like Venezuela where Hugo Chavez decides what you will and will not see and hear? Sean Penn might think that's great, but people who don't spend their days chasing women and snorting coke would likely love the ability to see the world from ALL angles.
It was a novel gimmick until everyone especially on the right realized that Fox was every bit as one-sided as all of the other media outlets.
My stance is and has been for some time that there are far better ways to gain information. and it requires relatively little work. The internet is a glorious thing. nothing is hidden if you know where to look. We don't need cable news outlets to decide what we will and will not see anymore. I've said it for awhile: People who solely watch MSNBC or Fox News do so not to become informed but to be fed what they want to hear. More power to them. Ignorance is bliss as they say.
for the rest of us, a few simple clicks of the mouse will grant us access to all the news of the world. And we should not take that for granted. As maxmordon said, imagine being in a place like Venezuela where Hugo Chavez decides what you will and will not see and hear? Sean Penn might think that's great, but people who don't spend their days chasing women and snorting coke would likely love the ability to see the world from ALL angles.
The news is often or usually slanted, sometimes intentionally, but I think more often "accidentally" by the reporter's lack of knowledge or experience in the subject, as well as to an extent unconsciously by one's political bias.
Yes, but there are many "small" stories that aren't covered independently. One field I'm thinking of is science, but anyone who is well-verse in some specialty has surely seen a blooper or two in the news when that specialty is covered. The story might be covered by only one writer and then picked up by AP (or does AP only use its own writers? I don't know how that works), which is then reported as a "footnote" story by newpapers and TV stations everywhere. It might not be seen as significant enough for someone in the news department to actually talk to someone involved with the story and find out some more pertinent facts, something the earlier reporter might have missed.
This is a good point - for one (increasingly common) example, if someone is fired for a blogpost, it's findable, usually even after they have deleted the post. You can see everything they said in context, rather than just the quote in the news story.