It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.
Please white-list or disable AboveTopSecret.com in your ad-blocking tool.
Thank you.
Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.
Anne: "I am giving up extreme sports now that I have children. I think I will take up golf."
Bill: "I wouldn't do that. Do you remember Charles? He was playing golf when he got hit by a golf-cart. It broke his leg, and he fell over, giving himself a concussion. He was in hospital for a week and still walks with a limp. I would stick to paragliding!"
The way news media operates is that a news-item comes up, is hyped for a day or a week, reaches a peak-hype and then dies off again with people loosing interest.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
If one cares to be entertained, then enjoy the news, if one cares to be informed, they must inform themselves.
Originally posted by Derised Emanresu
What is alarming to me is that people then try and censor or sanction sources of content that outrages them, content they would not usually subscribe to or engage themselves with. They have only done so in these instances when the "outrage" is manufacture purely by it becoming news worthy to the MSM, popular on youtube etc who have flogged it due to that very fact.
Me too.
Originally posted by Skyfloating
Im always overjoyed to meet people who can see this.
You raise one of the biggest issues that drives the problems pointed out in your OP. This is that profit( you use the examples of fame and fortune) is seen as one of the fundamental driving forces generated by MSM or exposure to it or from it. Even more alarmingly is that it is seen as the only way that MSM can ensure its own independence.
Because overall people still widely think that they are damaging someone by giving them negative press or stirring up controversy, when that is what actually gets that someone fame and fortune in the first place.
Outrage sells but in the end, nothing is solved by it, nothing at all. If anything it perpetuates the issue.
The problems we didn't have a few decades ago, was the massive MSM corps. The model that profit drives media independence has destroyed independent media to the point that the Net looked like it would maintain a last frontier for true independent journalism, thought and opinion in news and media sources.
This is how the game has been played since thousands of years and continues to be played, to this day and even right here at this site that was probably originally meant to expose the game.
Which is why we have the same old same old. Especially so when profit as independence is the mantra.
You don’t need to scratch the surface very hard to see that opportunities for media businesses are limited, investment and innovation are constrained, and creativity is reduced.
People want to trust their news sources. That is why it needs to be impartial. How this is achieved independently via a philosophy of profit, seems absurd. If this was the case, we would see news and information simply delivered as is, but instead we get it presented intertwined with opinion or commentary along with emotional responses or reactions from caricatures, personalities or stereotypes that represent a mainstream view on nearly all topics. It is also why we get crap reality shows, contests and the cult of celebrity. None of which empowers individual's IMHO.
The right path is all about trusting and empowering consumers.
It is about embracing private enterprise and profit as a driver of investment, innovation and independence. And the dramatic reduction of the activities of the state in our sector.
What James is referring to here and in the last quote , in my humble opinion, is self regulation. But like all other profit driven mechanism, self regulation is not independent from the very foundations of its philosophy, which is to make a profit. This encourages, dare I say drives the source to maintain a partial view on topics in order to attract or maintain its audience to maintain, protect or increase a profit. When a winning formula is found, it is rehashed, recycled.
Often the unique position that the business of ideas enjoys in a free society is used as a justification for greater intrusion and control. On the contrary, its very specialness demands an unusual and vigorous… stillness.
Originally posted by Northwarden
Even if you see some problems, be more tolerant. People change and grow; it's called living. People have bad days and good days, it's an easy matter to pre-judge. The criteria listed in the OP is so far overblown, that I suddenly feel like I'm posting on an office building bulletin board. Should I put memo in my title, and desk number too?!
We're already under 600,000 rules in society, and three-quarters of them should be considered as red tape wrapping overblown litigation. Hopefully people will consider how many regulations they want to add to their fellow members. After that OP, I seriously question how speech is here.
Originally posted by Esrom Escutcheon Esquire
For instance, the resent passing of the president of Nigeria.
On the internet, one page on BBC's website.
In news papers, a small paragraph on one of the later pages.
Another example, the Death of the Polish president, who was killed along with the mature members of their goverment in a plane crash.
Fair enougth, it was coverd extensively.
But now he's been buried, what about the aftermath in Poland?
Whats the closure to the story?
We have been too often disappointed by the optimism of the American leaders, both in Vietnam and Washington, to have faith any longer in the silver linings they find in the darkest clouds. They may be right, that Hanoi's winter-spring offensive has been forced by the Communist realization that they could not win the longer war of attrition, and that the Communists hope that any success in the offensive will improve their position for eventual negotiations. It would improve their position, and it would also require our realization, that we should have had all along, that any negotiations must be that -- negotiations, not the dictation of peace terms. For it seems now more certain than ever that the bloody experience of Vietnam is to end in a stalemate. This summer's almost certain standoff will either end in real give-and-take negotiations or terrible escalation; and for every means we have to escalate, the enemy can match us, and that applies to invasion of the North, the use of nuclear weapons, or the mere commitment of one hundred, or two hundred, or three hundred thousand more American troops to the battle. And with each escalation, the world comes closer to the brink of cosmic disaster.
To say that we are closer to victory today is to believe, in the face of the evidence, the optimists who have been wrong in the past. To suggest we are on the edge of defeat is to yield to unreasonable pessimism. To say that we are mired in stalemate seems the only realistic, yet unsatisfactory, conclusion. On the off chance that military and political analysts are right, in the next few months we must test the enemy's intentions, in case this is indeed his last big gasp before negotiations. But it is increasingly clear to this reporter that the only rational way out then will be to negotiate, not as victors, but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could
"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."
Naval History: You said “show people what war is.” Is that the reason Braestrup criticized broadcast over print coverage? As a print journalist himself, he says they got it right, and you guys got it wrong, essentially.
Cronkite: Well, I disagree with that.
Naval History: He referred to you and Frank Magee of NBC, in particular.
Cronkite: He was talking mostly about my summary after Tet. That is the only editorial I’ve ever done on the air, other than those in defense of freedom of the press itself. No, I don’t think I had it wrong. Admittedly, it would appear that later evidence contained in North Vietnam – now that the North Vietnamese generals have talked about the war – shows that they had suffered severely and were not capable of mounting another offensive of that nature. While that would seem to indicate that Braestrup and other critics have it right, that I was signing off a little early, it ignores the fact that General Westmoreland was asking for something over 300,000 more men in order to put a finish to the war.
Well, we’d been hearing about this escalation of forces from the time we first sent troops under President Kennedy to help instruct the South Vietnamese Army. Our people were there only for purposes of instruction, originally. From that we’d escalated into this terrible mauling that the Vietcong and the North Vietnamese Army planned for us. I can’t see that we were wrong in reporting about that. If Westmoreland needed that many men to build his forces for an all-out attack on the enemy, then we were promised only another massive escalation in the face of crumbling support from an increasingly divided home front.
I disagree JPZ (I hope you don't mind the initialism). How is it unreasonable to trust a service. This is a basic structure of society and creating consumer trust for any service provider is one of the key components, if not the most important relationship a service provider has with a consumer. This happens across the entire spectrum of services. I would like to know how you differentiate a NEWS or Media service with most other services. There is an expectation of trust and integrity in the delivery of any service. Just as we choose our news or media services for information etc, so too do we choose doctors or dentists for the information and expertise specific to their service. Trust carries uncertainty and vulnerability. So individuals don't just "trust" media or news service, they do so uncertainly. That is the nature of trust. It is that uncertainty that inspires a post like the OP's and replies like mine.
Originally posted by Jean Paul Zodeaux
This whole notion that people should be able to .........those who turn to that news source thinks it should be trusted.
It is not news then is it. It is opinion.
Because of this unreasonable demand, some sort of impossible standard is placed upon news sources, where the personal view point of the journalist is somehow supposed to stay out of the news story.
“The core of journalism is unbiased news coverage. If there is a crisis in this country, it is that this core is shrinking and it’s shrinking pretty rapidly. There’s not a lot of money in unbiased journalism -advertisers tend not to like that as an advertising environment - so there is less money that is supporting that. So this country is seeing less and less unbiased journalism and it is an impending crisis.”
careers.foxnews.com...
The FOX News Channel is looking for experienced media professionals, journalists and support staff who understand what people want from today's news: More information, presented in a fair and balanced format.
Who said that on this thread?
A news story that presents just the facts, and nothing but the facts, but even more is the expectation that news is expected to operate without any concern for profits.
You seem to be inventing an argument unrelated to the OP to make a point JPZ.
The irony of blaming all that is considered wrong with news on profits, is that those making such a complaint expect "impartial" news, even though their own arguments against profit driven news is hardly impartial,
post by Skyfloating
or taking 0.1% and acting like it represents what things are like in general
Whoa! JPZ. Who has said that in this thread. The OP raises the issues of the type of content and its quality.
So, were those who would impose these impossibly rigid standards on news are entitled to their opinions, the news apparently is not.
I guess that must be frustrating. But why is that frustration being vented on a thread where no one actually makes that claim?
What makes this particular bent even more frustrating is the perpetual canard thrust upon us, that just a few decades ago, the news actually did adhere to these impossible standards.
Really? I guess juxtaposed against a contemporary Media that failed in its duty to questions its administration when it lied to justify a war, this adversarial media of yesteryear does seem like a fable.
Never mind the fact that Walter Conkrite..... if not stronger, adversary in the U.S. media, than it did in the Viet Cong, those were the golden days of news, that followed a fabled gold standard that just never existed.
I would say that the motive that News can only be independent by profit is reflected in bad content and results in the examples the OP has offered and not that making a profit from a news service is bad. The fundamentals should be to provide a news service, IMHO, and not to simply generate content as "news" in order to profit. Again, I think the OP reflects traits of MSM news generating or manufacturing content purely because it translates into profit.
While today, they bemoan the "profit motive", they seemingly have no problem at all that news was profitable back then, it just didn't fairly represent anyone who disagreed with that bent.
Editorial pieces have that effect, don't they. Did Cronkite invent the issue? It was a contemporary and topical situation worthy of debate, was it not? This was an issue of national, and global significance. Was Crokites opinion piece making a mountain out of a mole hill? Did Cronkite take an insignificant issue or part thereof or manufacture that it was general to the overall issue to manufacture the national discontent or outrage that did not exist before hand?
Staying with the Vietnam conflict....... but as an honorable people who lived up to their pledge to defend democracy, and did the best they could
I am glad you said supposedly, because that quote is a media myth, it is well reported as being a myth.
After this scathing editorial, President Lyndon Johnson supposedly said:
"If I've lost Cronkite, I've lost Middle America."
Are you ignoring all the other aspects of the War. Cronkite is clear on his assessment of the situation. Why did you leave te introduction to Cronkites editorial out? This is what the OP refers to as Cherry picking, in his OP.
An increasingly divided home front that was facilitated, in a large part, by an increasingly hostile main stream media towards that military effort, that was by all historical accounts, winning, not loosing, nor facing a stalemate, but winning, that conflict.
Tonight, back in more familiar surroundings in New York, we'd like to sum up our findings in Vietnam, an analysis that must be speculative, personal, subjective.
Who said they were unbiased? Who injected the fairy tale you keep referring?
Again, ...... told that the media back than was unbiased, and can only do so from my personal point of view.
I refer to this in my post when I say that what is significant now is the massive MSM corporations that exist. I use Murdoch as the example. These are the MSM sources that are Profit first.
Indeed, the U.S. mainstream media smugly refers to itself as "The Fourth Estate",
My concern is the perception that independence in news is reliant on profit making. That this encourages content that makes a profit or creates a news service that cannot divorce the significance or relevance or the quality of its content from that very contents ability to be a mechanism that generates profit. The significance or relevance can become that of profit. I think the OP points this out. I don't care what side of the political fence you are on.
So, as long as that media leans left, then whatever profit they make apparently is fair enough to those who agree with that bent, but God forbid a news outlet that swings in the opposite direction make a profit, then the whole damn media is guilty of trying to make a profit and no one can be trusted anymore, as if they ever could.
Yes. IMHO, Now it is worse and driven by a need to profit. But there are many great examples of pure investigative journalism created independently purely to inform the public as well. Come on JPZ, you know that. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
When William Randolph Hearst, .......attacked the Spanish Marriage, and Mercurius Aulicus that was purely royalist propaganda, the news has always come with a bent, and the tooth fairy just doesn't exist.
I think that we can see clear differences in the types of content and the issues addressed in the examples you uses when compared to the MSM sources that Murdoch operates. Are the NPR or PBS typical of the OP? Is that driven by profit? Are NPR and PBS only able to maintain the independence of their news service via profit making?
There is NPR and PBS, which are not "profit driven" and while those stations may provide a valuable alternative to news, it is government sponsored news and should be no more trusted than anything owned by the Murdoch family today.
Really? And that means we cannot expect or ask for a standard or expect professional journalism, not what the OP points out?
Running a news organization costs money, and if it is to told by professionals, they deserve to be paid,
and frankly I would like to choose my news propaganda in a free market, rather than be taxed to death to have that propaganda shoved down my throat as "trusted". The media has a right to profit just the same as anyone.
This is a basic structure of society and creating consumer trust for any service provider is one of the key components, if not the most important relationship a service provider has with a consumer.
I would like to know how you differentiate a NEWS or Media service with most other services.
There is an expectation of trust and integrity in the delivery of any service. Just as we choose our news or media services for information etc, so too do we choose doctors or dentists for the information and expertise specific to their service.
Trust carries uncertainty and vulnerability.
Why is it that the failing standard or poor quality, that the OP points out, is the fault of the consumer?
Especially given that the mantra of most media is that of its quality, honesty, that it is trustworthy and reliable, impartial and founded in integrity.
It is not a problem of unreasonable trust or expectation to ask that this mantra be lived up too.
I don't think I will find you arguing that people should not expect to trust a doctor or an architect, and that they should get medical degrees themselves or build their own homes?
Because we engage with it daily across the spectrum, the idea that we can or should trust media seems even more important.
The idea that we shouldhave a trust for any service is a reflection of a standard or an ideal that what we try to achieve.
That the best quality of that service in any field will attract any consumer because it is a superior choice to any other competitor.
What I point out in my reply to the OP is that the quality of the News or Media product cannot be achieved independently as a service itself because of a philosophy that this can only be achieved by profit.
"Outrage sells but in the end, nothing is solved by it, nothing at all. If anything it perpetuates the issue".
It is not news then is it. It is opinion.
Most news services are up to their eyeballs in editorials or opinion pieces already. Can we not have the facts first? Why is this an impossible standard?
On the "impossible standard" and "unreasonable demand". This expectation is generated by the media and news services themselves. They didn't just turn up and then say, "well all we have is opinion so don't go getting all fancy with your demands and expectations".
When the concern for profit drives the content, then we can get what the OP points out. My concern, which I clearly state, is that sections of the Media thinks it can only be independent via profit. I have no problem with news services making money.
You seem to be inventing an argument unrelated to the OP to make a point JPZ. The irony of your opinion is that you have created a scenario in order to provide your opinion and bias, that is exactly what the OP criticizes.
I guess that must be frustrating. But why is that frustration being vented on a thread where no one actually makes that claim?
The problems we didn't have a few decades ago, was the massive MSM corps. The model that profit drives media independence has destroyed independent media to the point that the Net looked like it would maintain a last frontier for true independent journalism, thought and opinion in news and media sources.
Really? I guess juxtaposed against a contemporary Media that failed in its duty to questions its administration when it lied to justify a war, this adversarial media of yesteryear does seem like a fable.
I disagree with your opinion that the Media was so adversarial while the Vietnam war was on.
I can site numerous examples of the MSM media being slack on events only to have small independent media breaking news events, like the My Lai massacre broken by Journalists like Seymour Hersh.
I would say that the motive that News can only be independent by profit is reflected in bad content and results in the examples the OP has offered and not that making a profit from a news service is bad.
The fundamentals should be to provide a news service, IMHO, and not to simply generate content as "news" in order to profit. Again, I think the OP reflects traits of MSM news generating or manufacturing content purely because it translates into profit.
Editorial pieces have that effect, don't they. Did Cronkite invent the issue? It was a contemporary and topical situation worthy of debate, was it not? This was an issue of national, and global significance. Was Crokites opinion piece making a mountain out of a mole hill? Did Cronkite take an insignificant issue or part thereof or manufacture that it was general to the overall issue to manufacture the national discontent or outrage that did not exist before hand?
I am glad you said supposedly, because that quote is a media myth, it is well reported as being a myth.
Are you ignoring all the other aspects of the War.
This is what the OP refers to as Cherry picking, in his OP.
Who said they were unbiased? Who injected the fairy tale you keep referring?
People want to trust their news sources. That is why it needs to be impartial.
If this was the case, we would see news and information simply delivered as is, but instead we get it presented intertwined with opinion or commentary along with emotional responses or reactions from caricatures, personalities or stereotypes that represent a mainstream view on nearly all topics.
It is also why we get crap reality shows, contests and the cult of celebrity. None of which empowers individual's IMHO.
I refer to this in my post when I say that what is significant now is the massive MSM corporations that exist. I use Murdoch as the example. These are the MSM sources that are Profit first.
My concern is the perception that independence in news is reliant on profit making. That this encourages content that makes a profit or creates a news service that cannot divorce the significance or relevance or the quality of its content from that very contents ability to be a mechanism that generates profit. The significance or relevance can become that of profit. I think the OP points this out. I don't care what side of the political fence you are on.
My concern is the perception that independence in news is reliant on profit making. That this encourages content that makes a profit or creates a news service that cannot divorce the significance or relevance or the quality of its content from that very contents ability to be a mechanism that generates profit. The significance or relevance can become that of profit. I think the OP points this out. I don't care what side of the political fence you are on.
Yes. IMHO, Now it is worse and driven by a need to profit.
But there are many great examples of pure investigative journalism created independently purely to inform the public as well. Come on JPZ, you know that. Lets not throw the baby out with the bath water.
I think that we can see clear differences in the types of content and the issues addressed in the examples you uses when compared to the MSM sources that Murdoch operates.
Are the NPR or PBS typical of the OP? Is that driven by profit? Are NPR and PBS only able to maintain the independence of their news service via profit making?
Really? And that means we cannot expect or ask for a standard or expect professional journalism, not what the OP points out?
Who has died from Taxes to pay for media JPZ? I think the OP refers to exaggerating issues.
Of course they are free to make a profit. Again, who is against that on this thread JPZ?
I prefer a mix of sources, free market MSM, small collectives of Independent Journalists, Government sponsored or subsidized media, Small websites or Independent Investigative Journalists who blog from political events or War Zones.
I don't believe any of these News or Media should be reliant only on profitability as the only means of being news, because it destroys that very independence.
If we take the Free market as an example, it is concentrated and so are the issues and content, so is any bias, so are the range of opinions or researchers or journalists that they will use, and so is the philosophy that the driving concept that it is fundamental to that news service and anyone or thing associated with it is that it must sell, or profit.