Is The Media At Fault?

[JackLuis]

Is the Media at fault for the state of our Democracy?

Candidates and Parties are subject to exhaustive 24/7 coverage, but is that "News", Infotainment, the deluded mutterings of a Neo-Con Corporatist, or the Screams of a Hair-On-Fire Communist?

I have read a lot of papers, back when papers were the thing: Washington Post, Hearld-Trib, Manila and Bangcok Times, while on business, London Times and many others.

Now I read the net, and find that the "TV Network News" to be pretty tepid, lacking in depth or moral outrage. Well moral outrage logically justified anyway.

I actually find more news in the UK papers, however not the Murdock ones.

Having grown up hearing George Putnam and Walter Cronkite, I can see the difference between the Platitude spouting spokes person and a REAL journalist.

Where are our Real Journalists?

Here are 13 things everyone would know if we really had a ‘liberal’ media

Reince Priebus (and apparently many others) still thinks there’s a liberal media.

While I share Priebus’ frustration with the media, as a liberal, I’d like to go on record and state that the media isn’t focusing on issues I care about. They seem to be far more focused on entertainment and making money.

Don’t believe me?

If you know anyone who still believes in a “liberal media,” here are 13 things everyone would know if there really were a “liberal media” (inspired by Jeff Bezos’ purchase of The Washington Post):

He lists 12 good points, but #13 is I think telling.

13. Media consolidation

Six corporations—Time Warner, Disney, News Corporation, Viacom, Comcast, and CBS—control roughly 90 percent of the media in the U.S. These companies are in business to make a profit.

This is why you’ll find plenty of advertisements in the media. Entertainment? Check. Sports? Definitely. Weather? Yep.

You’ll also find plenty of “if it bleeds, it leads” stories designed to hook you in.

There’s also plenty of political bickering: Democrats said this, Republicans said that. We let you decide (but we never weigh in with any facts or fact-checking).

What won’t you hear?

You won’t hear the “liberal media” discuss the corporate media.

What to make of this
If the media were “liberal,” it would serve the public interest and shine a light on issues like the ones above.

More people would also have a better understanding of global warming, peak oil, population growth, political lobbying, government’s role in a functioning economy, how much we spend on the military, and countless other issues.

What you’re more likely to see in the media, however, are stories designed to get you to buy their paper, or watch their show, or listen to their radio station. This is why the media is concerned with scandal, celebrities, gossip, and fear.

If anything, our news consists of paid advertisements and outlets too scared of offending anyone to publish substance. Investigative journalism is expensive; entertainment is cheap.

The way this corporate media behaves may not be surprising. I apologize if you feel any of this is beating you over the head.

This Buzzfeed-style list wasn’t intended to introduce this idea as new (others have done a much better job), but rather to highlight the sheer absurdity of a “liberal media” for an audience who may not see it.

If we have a “liberal media,” where are the liberal stories?

 

[Hard_Rom]

The old saying is newspapers are around to sell newspapers. If picking and choosing current events that will boost circulation then that is what they will do.

Many times good way to get an objective point of view is to step outside and have a look. Brit papers likely to be more objective about Yank news. Canuck papers more objective about Brit news. Sorta thing.

Although Canuck media not very objective about Yanks, Yanks about Brits or Canucks. Maybe learn French, German or Spanish. Walk down the street a ways and have a look.

 

[JackLuis]

The old saying is newspapers are around to sell newspapers. If picking and choosing current events that will boost circulation then that is what they will do.

Many times good way to get an objective point of view is to step outside and have a look. Brit papers likely to be more objective about Yank news. Canuck papers more objective about Brit news. Sorta thing.

Although Canuck media not very objective about Yanks, Yanks about Brits or Canucks. Maybe learn French, German or Spanish. Walk down the street a ways and have a look.

Well I have, 16 countries, over 10-15- years. I read the english versons of many countries. My net connections are good. My point is that the quality of journalism has declined to the point where the facts are not checked, spelling is optional and the language is trite in a lot of the articles I've read.

When Russel Brand, (for God's Sake) makes more sense out of a story than the Mainstream press, what does that tell you about the intellectual ability of the drones selected to report our news?

 

[Hard_Rom]

Well I have, 16 countries, over 10-15- years. I read the english versons of many countries. My net connections are good. My point is that the quality of journalism has declined to the point where the facts are not checked, spelling is optional and the language is trite in a lot of the articles I've read.

When Russel Brand, (for God's Sake) makes more sense out of a story than the Mainstream press, what does that tell you about the intellectual ability of the drones selected to report our news?

People go to latenight talk show hosts for news and commentary too. Maybe news media trying to compete with comedians.

I think huge amounts of media available waters the quality down. Be too high brow and intellectual and miss out on unibrow demographic.

To sell you have to appeal to lowest common demoninator.

Early printing of news pamphlets after introduction of cheap postage brought about many scandal and gossips sheets.

I stay with CBC and BBC. Sun media is a right wing rag organization. Not much more trite and boring than the Toronto Sun.

 

[phrodeau]

The internet provides a lot of competition, and forces the market numbers down to the point where stations and presses can't afford the higher-quality journalists any more. Especially in the smaller markets, corporate-owned or not.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Newspapers are done. I usta read 3 daily papers 40 years ago. Today I buy none. Its the way America is going.

 

[NOIRTRASH]

Our local paper was a racist rag a century ago. Then the owner died and his heirs embraced blacks and gals and queers, got rid of all their talent readers loved, and hired a battalion of liberal nutcakes all hated. Today it hangs on. All the liberal nutcakes are gone. One of them was a CNBC Moderator, and John Harwood wasn't as crazy as most of his local crew.