User Tag List

View Poll Results: Western Mainstream Media is?

Voters
40. You may not vote on this poll
  • Fair and Balanced

    0 0%
  • Relatively Fair and Balanced

    14 35.00%
  • Largely Propaganda

    26 65.00%
First 12345 Last

Results 21 to 30 of 49

Thread: Western Media

  1. #21
    Earth Exalted Thursday's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2008
    MBTI
    ENTJ
    Enneagram
    8w9 sp/sx
    Socionics
    LIE
    Posts
    3,965

    Default

    what jeffster said - as usual
    I N V I C T U S

  2. #22
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V Profane View Post
    Yes, it's no secret, but if you're saying the average person is actually aware of it, I think you're wrong.
    I can't see how. It's very clear what FNC is, and the people who watch it are watching because the network confirms for them what they already believe. Why would it get higher ratings than other news networks if there weren't a built-in audience that demands that style of journalism? Conservatives like the right-leaning news network. They do notice it, and they watch.



    Right-wingers want to have an AOL style media where they don't have to encounter nasty ideas that are contrary to their dogma. I don't think the ability of people to live in a media bubble is conducive to democracy, or civil society.
    This is ideological claptrap. First of all, there are plenty of left-leaning news outlets in America, and their fans are just as narrow in their tastes (NPR, Air America, etc.). That is by no means a right-wing phenomenon. Secondly, as I've stated before with regards to the First Amendment, people have A RIGHT to report on what they want, and A RIGHT to seek out the news that they want. Rights trump some notion of "civil society" through journalism.



    This is specifically paid for TV? As in 'I choose to pay for this because I want it TV'?
    Yes, this is not network TV, but a basic cable package in this day and age gets you 5-6 cable news networks, and we have several political debate and discussion shows on free network TV. Have you watched much American television?



    Who decides the mainstream? I know Penn & Teller get their libertarian polemics out on Showtime (Bullshit), I don't know of any popular left-wing show in the US (The Daily Show?). (Both non-factual programmes, anyway)
    Much of PBS is very left-wing. Keith Olbermann is a left-of-center Democrat and he is on MSNBC five days a week. The Daily Show (the last five years or so) and The Colbert Report are political. The shows are there, but are less popular. Penn & Teller's show is on Showtime, which is at a higher pay cable subscription level, and, thus, has a smaller market, but people watch.



    Well, I like the idea of the BBC, which is supposed to impartial, and is supposed to serve the needs of the British population. How successful it is in that is open to interpretation, but what is true, is that the general population overwhelmingly consumes the BBC's news output, through TV, radio, and internet. If it were commercial, I have no doubt that it would drop it's standards to at least ITN/ITV news, which is piss poor tabloid Daily Mail dreck.
    You're allowing aesthetic value judgments to influence your view on a political question here, and that is wrong. Who are you (or I) to say that The Daily Mail isn't a legitimate news source? If the BBC couldn't survive on its own, doesn't that mean that it is fundamentally flawed as an organization?



    Well that's one of the many issues upon which we shall diametrically disagree. But, consider this; no non-Brit goes to the ITV, or Channel 4, or Channel 5 websites as an authority. They're the other main British TV broadcasters, and they're all commercial. (Channel 4 does have a lingering governmental obligation, though)

    I've been to England twice, and I've watched ITV and Sky before. I don't think most Americans have HEARD of any British news entities besides the BBC, The Times, and Reuters. MAYBE Sky and The Economist. I don't see your point there. The quality of providing the target audience with the news is not reliant upon some notion of "journalistic prestige." Those are what Pulitzers are for. People have the choices available to them, if they bothered to check them out. Personally, I find it infuriating that my tax dollars go to support biased programs on PBS, and to things with which I vehemently disagree.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  3. #23
    Resident Snot-Nose GZA's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2007
    MBTI
    infp
    Posts
    1,771

    Default

    I wish there was an "other" option. I don't think it's "propaganda", just bullshit. It's not propaganda because it isn't actively trying to convince you of anything. It's more like it tells you what sounds interesting/what you want to hear regardless of how much it follows reality. For example, news seems to not be about news but about maing a story, something that will catch your attention, with drama, ect. It's like "find out how gasoline could be leaking into your water, at half past the hour" then in a week no one gives a shit because it was never a substantial threat in the first place. They always point the finger at someone or soemthing but it never seems to add up to anything at the end of the day. I just don't trust most news as news, it's more like the best reality TV show you don't even realize you're watching. Newspapers are better with this than TV. I would actually trust someone like Stephan Colbert or Jon Stewart more for news because at least they realize what a joke it is. I still don't rely on them for news though.

  4. #24
    / booyalab's Avatar
    Join Date
    Apr 2007
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,511

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by GZA View Post
    I wish there was an "other" option. I don't think it's "propaganda", just bullshit. It's not propaganda because it isn't actively trying to convince you of anything. It's more like it tells you what sounds interesting/what you want to hear regardless of how much it follows reality.
    agreed.

    Also, I think American media is fair in the sense that we have and enforce the Free Exercise Clause. But fair does not necessarily = balanced...and I can live with that.

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    Much of PBS is very left-wing. Keith Olbermann is a left-of-center Democrat and he is on MSNBC five days a week. The Daily Show (the last five years or so) and The Colbert Report are political. The shows are there, but are less popular. Penn & Teller's show is on Showtime, which is at a higher pay cable subscription level, and, thus, has a smaller market, but people watch.
    Media Bias Is Real, Finds UCLA Political Scientist / UCLA Newsroom

    Left-leaning sentiments are simply cooler and sexier. There has to be a reason that human interest stories have been so popular for so long. I can only assume that it's because most humans find them interesting. Personally, they make me gag.
    I don't wanna!

  5. #25
    Senior Member Members Only's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Interesting. I'm surprised nobody has yet to bring up ownership in relation to Media bias. Does it not scare people to have so few people, owning so many companies, in a way that they can dictate debate to their wishes?

    but they do research their subjects and try to sniff out scandals
    Could you provide a few examples of scandals uncovered by the mainstream media please?
    It's just a ride

  6. #26
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Members Only View Post
    Interesting. I'm surprised nobody has yet to bring up ownership in relation to Media bias. Does it not scare people to have so few people, owning so many companies, in a way that they can dictate debate to their wishes?
    Not as much as I fear about the media kowtowing to politicians and feeding us garbage, so they can keep their access to the people in power. Corporate leaders tend only to be ideological about making money, the odd Rupert Murdoch or George Soros aside. They want friendly regulations and low-to-moderate taxation, as a rule. Perhaps a bailout if things go south, as in the subprime mess.



    Could you provide a few examples of scandals uncovered by the mainstream media please?
    Watergate? It doesn't get much bigger than that. In the last few years, the Internet has been a good source, too. Drudge Report is practically MSM at this point. And the John Edwards scandal was broken by The National Enquirer, of all sources.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  7. #27
    Senior Member Members Only's Avatar
    Join Date
    Jul 2008
    MBTI
    INFP
    Posts
    107

    Default

    Watergate? It doesn't get much bigger than that.
    I would say it can get much bigger than that though.

    Here is an interview with Noam Chomsky where he speaks about Watergate, COINTELPRO, and the mainstream media.

    The Watergate section begins at 5:45.

    YouTube - 2 Chomsky Marr interview media

    Here is the Wiki on COINTELPRO.

    COINTELPRO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia
    It's just a ride

  8. #28
    Order Now! pure_mercury's Avatar
    Join Date
    Feb 2008
    MBTI
    ESFJ
    Posts
    6,946

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by Members Only View Post
    I would say it can get much bigger than that though.

    Here is an interview with Noam Chomsky where he speaks about Watergate, COINTELPRO, and the mainstream media.

    The Watergate section begins at 5:45.

    YouTube - 2 Chomsky Marr interview media

    Here is the Wiki on COINTELPRO.

    COINTELPRO - Wikipedia, the free encyclopedia

    In terms of American scandals, it doesn't get any bigger than Watergate. It's not the worst thing that the federal government has done, but the federal government has a knack for making the worst things it does look like features, not bugs.


    You lost me at "Here is an interview with Noam Chomsky. . ." Sorry, that man is a great linguist and a fine debater, but his sociopolitical theorizing leave much to be desired. I do appreciate his publicizing of American geopolitical interventionism, though.
    Who wants to try a bottle of merc's "Extroversion Olive Oil?"

  9. #29
    Wonderer Samuel De Mazarin's Avatar
    Join Date
    May 2008
    MBTI
    ENTP
    Posts
    1,026

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by V Profane View Post
    Corporations are indeed amoral. Their raisin d'etre is to maximise profits, which means they have no commitment to objectivity, 'fairness', or 'balance'.
    You just blue yourself!

    But I like it... the raisin of being...

    Madman's azure lie: a zen miasma ruled.

    Realize us, Madman!

    I razed a slum, Amen.

    ...............................................

  10. #30
    Senior Member V Profane's Avatar
    Join Date
    Aug 2008
    MBTI
    INTP
    Posts
    119

    Default

    Quote Originally Posted by pure_mercury View Post
    I can't see how. It's very clear what FNC is, and the people who watch it are watching because the network confirms for them what they already believe.
    I'm talking about the common ownership of seemingly unrelated entities, which is not particularly transparent.

    This is ideological claptrap. First of all, there are plenty of left-leaning news outlets in America, and their fans are just as narrow in their tastes (NPR, Air America, etc.).
    I imagine our conception of 'left-leaning' is rather different, but whatever. I was under the impression that NPR is supposed to be impartial.

    That is by no means a right-wing phenomenon. Secondly, as I've stated before with regards to the First Amendment, people have A RIGHT to report on what they want, and A RIGHT to seek out the news that they want. Rights trump some notion of "civil society" through journalism.
    People have the right to set themselves on fire if they want, doesn't mean it's a good thing. Since democracy requires an informed, educated, engaged electorate to function well, don't you think it would be beneficial for at least one mainstream outlet (preferably multimedia) to be as impartial as possible?

    Have you watched much American television?
    I watch very little television of any description these days, outside of the odd stuff that I torrent (like Bullshit!).

    You're allowing aesthetic value judgments to influence your view on a political question here, and that is wrong. Who are you (or I) to say that The Daily Mail isn't a legitimate news source?
    It's not an aesthetic judgement to say that the Daily Mail consistently and deliberately distorts, misreports, and scaremongers. I'd also say that when it comes to reporting facts, the aesthetic is not just matter of taste because it can strongly influence the impression the viewer/reader is left with without necessarily saying anything untrue or inaccurate.

    If the BBC couldn't survive on its own, doesn't that mean that it is fundamentally flawed as an organization?
    The BBC could survive commercially in a drastically altered, smaller form. Programmes like Top Gear and Dr Who do make a profit from being sold overseas, but that's not really the point. The BBC was designed to be a public service funded by the public, just like the NHS, so criticising it for not being commercially viable is like criticising a car for not being able to fly, it's not supposed to. We don't expect hospitals, schools, emergency services, or the military to run at a profit, they're all publicly funded for the mutual benefit they bring. The BBC falls more or less in that bracket. It's a question of if you believe profit and financial efficiency are the most important considerations when deciding on the value of an organisation.

    I've been to England twice, and I've watched ITV and Sky before. I don't think most Americans have HEARD of any British news entities besides the BBC, The Times, and Reuters. MAYBE Sky and The Economist. I don't see your point there.
    My point was that the BBC is internationally recognised and respected as a news source as a result of how it is funded. If it were a commercial organisation, I expect it would be as obscure to you and the rest of the world as the other British broadcasters because it would not be able to offer the same level of service.

    Personally, I find it infuriating that my tax dollars go to support biased programs on PBS, and to things with which I vehemently disagree.
    I don't agree with everything the BBC does, far from it. But since it's for everybody and not just me, I take the parts I want and leave the rest.

    Quote Originally Posted by Samuel De Mazarin View Post
    You just blue yourself!

    But I like it... the raisin of being...
    Sacre blue!

Similar Threads

  1. The low percentage of INTPs in Western Fantasy and Science Fiction
    By nightwatcher in forum Popular Culture and Type
    Replies: 25
    Last Post: 08-11-2012, 07:03 PM
  2. Marketing and Media Literacy
    By GZA in forum General Psychology
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 04-18-2008, 03:14 PM
  3. Anyone else find the news media annoying?
    By The_Liquid_Laser in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 11
    Last Post: 03-06-2008, 12:53 AM
  4. MBTI in mainstream media
    By Economica in forum The Bonfire
    Replies: 17
    Last Post: 02-25-2008, 10:09 AM
  5. The FCC and Big Media - time is running out!
    By anii in forum Politics, History, and Current Events
    Replies: 0
    Last Post: 11-29-2007, 01:55 AM

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
Single Sign On provided by vBSSO