We do things different up here, you bet. - by Gingerbread Man
aguywhoplaysthief on 27/4/2006 at 03:22
Because Tony Snow will eat the press if they misbehave.
tungsten on 27/4/2006 at 03:22
The media report what they think the public wants to see in order to sell itself (the media). The politicians do what they think gets them re-elected and especially in the US they use polls to find out what they "should" do. Politicians are not leaders anymore but puppets. They try to do what their financial backing (the corporations) wants, in a way that it appears as if they'd be doing what the polls shout.
So why should the media oppose the governement, they're both trying to do what the people want! Journalism for minorities? What for? Journalists don't do their job "for truth/a better world" anymore, they do it for money, for fame... And that you get easier if you cater the majority. And the politicians are elected by these majorities (except when they are elected by some jury like in the US, Italy etc..)
I don't know your politician, but either he's extremely stupid, or he wanted to get a lot of attention for these returnees. What could he have done to get more attention to them?
Jonesy on 27/4/2006 at 04:13
The not allowing pictures of caskets might have something to do with all the pictures of body bags being sent to Vietnam coming back full in C-130 cargo bays.
Just a thought.
Gingerbread Man on 27/4/2006 at 04:29
I think everyone's pretty much figured out why governments don't want the public to see the caskets returning. We're pretty smart like that.
tungsten on 27/4/2006 at 04:56
Are you saying that your politician seriously wanted less attention for the bodies?
Then I commiserate you for the dumbness of your Prime Minister. Democracy sucks.
Aja on 27/4/2006 at 05:48
I didn't vote for him :mad:
Also, he's a little overweight! :mad: :mad:
scumble on 27/4/2006 at 10:25
Quote Posted by Agent Monkeysee
I think it's a couple things in order of importance:
1) Media consolidation and subsequent corporatization
2) 24 hour news coverage
3) The abolishment of the Fairness Doctrine
4) The rise and acceptance of active public-relations participation in news media
Basically those all came together to create a system that rewards sensationalistic and apathetic journalism, though I'm not really smart enough to put all this together into a more coherent thesis.
It is perhaps instructive to look at Rupert Murdoch - he apparently keeps his media outlets somewhat biased towards the right in an active way due to his particular political stance. There are many people who moan about this, but he happens to follow the Republican party line more or less. On both sides there are benifits - Murdoch gets much influence no doubt and a few perks, and the current administration gets a sympathetic mass-media machine. Certainly seems that way, despite the fact that "conservatives" keep going on about the "liberal" media. Maybe it's just not gung-ho enough for them.
The consolidation and corporatisation you mention means there are a bunch of large monolithic organisations that can be steered relatively easily by a few people into a particular bias.
I've come across other ideas that the usually government-friendly angle derives from the fact that a lot of information actually comes through some government agency, but then there are enough alternative sources of information to make this a little dubious, so some concious guidance is happening somewhere.
Ultimately the problem is only with the mass media, but alternative sources of information are undermining it to a certain extent, as long as people go and look for it. The trouble is that most people don't, watch TV news and think they know what's going on in the world.
JKeats on 27/4/2006 at 13:46
I can't speak for television news since I never watch it. There is no lack of quality investigative journalism in the American press however. The Washington Post, the LA Times, NYT, Chicago Tribune and many others regularly run excellent, multi-part investigative series.
GBM, may I ask what US newspapers and journals you read regularly? That's not meant to be snarky, I really am curious. I'd recommend The Atlantic Monthly if you don't already read it.
Also, could somebody explain to me what "corporatization of the press" means? The Washington Post is owned by the Washington Post Company, which is a publicly traded firm. It's news coverage is quite excellent though, despite being owned by a corporation. Same with the NYT. What gives?
Agent Monkeysee on 27/4/2006 at 16:23
Quote Posted by JKeats
Also, could somebody explain to me what "corporatization of the press" means? The Washington Post is owned by the Washington Post Company, which is a publicly traded firm. It's news coverage is quite excellent though, despite being owned by a corporation. Same with the NYT. What gives?
Consolidation of news companies under large media conglomerates. Most newspapers are owned by 4 or 5 large companies, every TV news station is under 3 or 4 companies. Just about every radio station has some connection to Clear Channel these days.
Massive media consolidation and conglomeration is what it means and the fact that you could cherry-pick two examples that didn't fit the pattern leads me to wonder what exactly you didn't understand about the term.
JKeats on 27/4/2006 at 16:47
I chose those two examples because those are the ones I read daily.
Well, you're right that many newspapers are owned by Gannet and Knight-Ridder, for example, but what I'm trying to figure out is why people automatically assume this leads to inferior news coverage.
I'll leave TV and radio news out of it, since I'm not really qualified to talk intelligently about them.
-edit-
Bit of a tangent here
I had a look at the Reporter Without Borders <a href="http://www.rsf.org/rubrique.php3?id_rubrique=554">press freedom index</a> just now. I confess I am not very familiar with this organization or their reputation. Their <a href="http://www.rsf.org/article.php3?id_article=15338">methodology page</a> didn't explain the exact criteria they use to measure press freedom. Assuming that they are a competent and impartial group, it does appear that Canada has a freer press than the US. Score one for our northern neighbors.
