The new forums will be named Coin Return (based on the most recent vote)! You can check on the status and timeline of the transition to the new forums here.
The Guiding Principles and New Rules document is now in effect.
MSM: The Mainstream Media
Qingu
Registered User regular
Registered User regular
There's a lot of criticism of the media on this forum, and most of it seems warranted to me. Today's media is frivolous, sensationalist, and celebrity-obsessed. They often cater to people's weaknesses and stupidity and are motivated by profit.
My question is: has the media demonstrably gotten worse in the past decade or two? And if so, what is causing it to get worse? It must be something systemic.
The fact that there is such a thing as "the MSM" is interesting to me because this seems like a recent phenomena. Apparently enough people turn to blogs and the Daily Show (the "alternative media") that they actually have a vantage point from which to identify a "mainstream media."
I also think it's interesting that so much of what the MSM is can effectively be duplicated and improved upon by the alternative media. Much of what you read and see as "news" is simply filtering and packaging of a huge number of what I'll call "primary news sources." But almost anyone can do this. People get their news from the Onion, Daily Show and Colbert because they filter and package news bites just as effectively as MSM news programs and papers, and their comedy is simply equivalent to the Opinion page/section but with commentary spread throughout the rest. News-themed blogs are virtually identical to "sections" of a newspaper, catered to a specific interest, and many of us read several of them every day just like people used to flip through various sections of the newspaper.
I don't think today's "alternative media" is the first of its kind, though. Conservative and Christian-themed media programming acted as an alternative to the "liberal" or "secular" media. Rush Limbaugh even describes himself, like John Stewart, as an "entertainer" first and foremost.
Fox News seems like a weird gradient between this conservative "alternative media" and the MSM. I think many people on the MSM are basically actors, first and foremost, even on nonbiased programs—they have to be photogenic, they have to pretend a certain amount in their jobs. There's a thin line between someone like Rush Limbaugh, who probably knowingly lies on his program to manipulate his audience, and someone like a coiffed news anchor on Fox News who has to read stuff that he may or may not believe, and probably isn't bothering to think about it very deeply. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh is also very much like John Stewart, in that he is both a valuable filter and a comedic commentary on the news.
So back to my original question: is the mainstream media getting worse because it is losing intelligent audience to the liberal alternative media, and has to cater to a less intelligent demographic? Discuss media!
My question is: has the media demonstrably gotten worse in the past decade or two? And if so, what is causing it to get worse? It must be something systemic.
The fact that there is such a thing as "the MSM" is interesting to me because this seems like a recent phenomena. Apparently enough people turn to blogs and the Daily Show (the "alternative media") that they actually have a vantage point from which to identify a "mainstream media."
I also think it's interesting that so much of what the MSM is can effectively be duplicated and improved upon by the alternative media. Much of what you read and see as "news" is simply filtering and packaging of a huge number of what I'll call "primary news sources." But almost anyone can do this. People get their news from the Onion, Daily Show and Colbert because they filter and package news bites just as effectively as MSM news programs and papers, and their comedy is simply equivalent to the Opinion page/section but with commentary spread throughout the rest. News-themed blogs are virtually identical to "sections" of a newspaper, catered to a specific interest, and many of us read several of them every day just like people used to flip through various sections of the newspaper.
I don't think today's "alternative media" is the first of its kind, though. Conservative and Christian-themed media programming acted as an alternative to the "liberal" or "secular" media. Rush Limbaugh even describes himself, like John Stewart, as an "entertainer" first and foremost.
Fox News seems like a weird gradient between this conservative "alternative media" and the MSM. I think many people on the MSM are basically actors, first and foremost, even on nonbiased programs—they have to be photogenic, they have to pretend a certain amount in their jobs. There's a thin line between someone like Rush Limbaugh, who probably knowingly lies on his program to manipulate his audience, and someone like a coiffed news anchor on Fox News who has to read stuff that he may or may not believe, and probably isn't bothering to think about it very deeply. Similarly, Rush Limbaugh is also very much like John Stewart, in that he is both a valuable filter and a comedic commentary on the news.
So back to my original question: is the mainstream media getting worse because it is losing intelligent audience to the liberal alternative media, and has to cater to a less intelligent demographic? Discuss media!
Yes, I know I'm totally elitist. And I'm assuming that most of us here are liberals who also have problems with the media
Qingu on
0
Posts
Getting worse? Not entirely sure. I'm pretty suspicious of arguments that imply nostalgia for some unspecified time in the past when things were obstensibly better. There's always been sensationalist media, biased media, and just plain bad media. I do think that mainstream television news (at least in the US) has an overall deleterious effect on popular discourse and politics.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
So the problem lies on both sides, as I see it. The American public is stupid for not caring about the truth and only wanting entertainment. The "news" networks are stupid for selling their integrity for higher profit margins.
Steam | Twitter
But ever since the Reagan Administration took crafting an image for the press to new heights, the media's been obsessed with 'narrative.' They don't just want to report a story, they want to tell it, and so they emphasize information that enhances that narrative while downplaying information that could contradict it.
So it becomes that the talking heads decide what's news and what isn't, and reams of real, important data points are lost in the shuffle.
I think the best solution to it all is to take a baseball bat to Tim Russert's head.
Maybe it's because I've grown up or whatever, but I've noticed that I, personality, have begun trusting the media less and less in my lifetime. Though maybe this is because I only recently (high school) started reading the Onion and other stuff like that and stopped reading stuff like Time.
Exactly.
The News Media is getting worse because it's become more and more about MONEY.
It's about profit instead of supplying information. It's about ratings. And as far as I've figured out, ratings go up due to:
a) scandal
b) sex
c) FEAR!!!!!!!
d) a combination of the above
So that's what we get.
Investigative reporting? Too expensive. Just have some guy blab on with his opinion for ages about the same thing. Way cheaper.
Of course, the public is to blame for some of this. But the general public has never had taste or sense. What has changed is that the people running the news no longer care about "news", they care about profit.
And the truly horrible thing is that a competent news media is a cornerstone of a democratic system. Voters need to be informed to make the right choice. The medias unwillingness to actually do their fucking job is a huge cause of the problems the US faces right now.
I think though, that while the media will get worse, the viewers will get smarter. Maybe it's just me, but I get the distinct impression that alot of the younger (below 30) generation expects distortion in their media and takes nothing at face value.
And the internet is a powerful tool for the dissemination of information. And most importantly, it'sa tool for the dissemination of information quickly, efficiently and on a massive scale that doesn't require tons of money. This means the bullshit doesn't get swallowed all the time.
The sad truth though is that those who most need those tools to help them think critically about what they are told are the least likely to use those tools.
Or, basically, the dumb are too dumb to be less dumb. They swallow the bullshit cable shoves down their throats and never question it. Hell, if it goes against their already established assumptions, they switch to a different station that doesn't challenge those assumptions.
Less biased news sources like PBS and BBC work around the limitations of the medium quite well. They're not offensively biased or simplistic, but they're still worse at delivering information efficiently than the Internet or even a magazine or newspaper.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
Just fucking kill them, I say. Murder every last talking head who isn't Keith Olbermann or Rachel Maddows.
Preach on America.
Steam | Twitter
So slit their throats and bash their brains out, maybe they'll understand that.
I disagree. Documentary programs such as Frontline delve extremely deeply into the nuance and complexities of gray issues. You aren't capable of instantly cross checking the references/citations or replaying some bits of it that you're fuzzy on, but it still proves extremely capable of communicating a point. Same thing with The News Hour with Jim Lehrer and their ability to delve into an issue thanks to no commercial breaks, which promotes the long form.
I'd say that, as a medium, TV/prepackaged video content is quite capable of delivering the news effectively. If the 24/7's were actually driven by content and arguing over the claims rather than the 'strategies' of politicians/agencies and if they'd do mini-documentaries about germaine issues, they'd be great assetts. As it is, they act like the op-ed page, not the front cover, and their documentaries are about rapists, prisons, and NAMBLA members who should have a seat.
Also, TV news quality went downhill after 60 Minutes made a profit. Companies started looking at their news division as something to make money with, rather than as a public service required to keep their FCC license. Prior to that, but after WWII propaganda and the yellow journalism that preceded it, was the 'golden age' where the news was the news and not opinion or press statements read by an anchorman rather than a secretary. And the MSM simply refers to media that is consumed en masse. Back in the day, and even at present most people got their news from a limited source. The 3 networks and their newspaper. Even then, I'd say that the Marion Post Dispatch isn't really 'mainstream' since it's only read by 34 people. NYT, WaPo, Chicago Tribune, LA Times, &c. would be, though.
It, thus, gets down to individuals for me. The network is a factor, but in the end the individual makes the call to go along with it or head somewhere that better falls in line with what they want to do. Take the Presidential debates. The network the debate is on carries much less weight than who the moderator is. If a debate's on CNN, that means Anderson Cooper could be moderating, but it also means Wolf Blitzer could be moderating.
You have to have people on the ground reporting. These people are paid by the AP and Reuters and newspaper. Yes, a media channel or blog can filter, arrange and interpret these reports, but you can't eliminate the reporters, or replace them with boggers or the Onion.
And like it or not, politicians and the government will not talk to just anyone. They have press conferences where you are only allowed to attent if you have a "press pass." This might be changing a little—such as when a blogger posted a video of Obama's "elitist/bittergate" speech. But if politicians want a dialogue (or want to portray a dialogue) they have to choose or funnel the other side.
As long as those are accessible via Tivo/On Demand, I think that's a good argument. If there were a way that a news show could flash up a little ad for their On-Demand documentaries during or after a relevant news story, that would be even better. Having an in-depth report or documentary on at a different time that may or may not be convenient for the viewer doesn't really help, but if they have the option of delving deeper into a subject at their leisure, that's a good thing. Interactivity and on-demand programming are going to change my attitude towards TV - I don't think I'll be saying the same things in 20 years.
I admit to being biased against TV in general. I don't even have cable TV in my house. I see it as a colossal waste of time and money. But as it becomes possible to pick and choose what you want to watch and as more and more programming seeks to take advantage of that by catering to the Long Tail, my distaste for TV weakens.
the "no true scotch man" fallacy.
kpop appreciation station i also like to tweet some
Those people are generally the first to be fired due to the cost of having overseas bureaus. Plus, their reports don't get a whole lot of air time to begin with.
There's nothing wrong with a media elite. The problem is when that media elite cares about ratings more then informing people.
Even in the "golden age" news wasn't about providing a public service - it was about fostering a public image of integrity to help shield the network from all the underhanded things going on on their other shows. Example: CBS using their news division as proof of their "integrity" after they were caught rigging game shows.
If you want celebrity scandals to go away, all you have to do is what they did in the 40s and 50s - allow the studios to control the press, and to a lesser extent the police. The reason no one heard about Errol Flynn's statuatory rape case is because he was a studio asset, so the studio simply stopped the LA papers from running the story - a reaction to the OJ-esque spectacle that was the Fatty Arbuckle case. As soon as the studio system broke up actors were no longer studio property, the studios lost their interest in protecting them, and all those "respectable" papers went back to doing OJ, Clarkson, etc.
This resulted in news being treated like sensationalist bullshit and news divisions getting rid of many of their foreign bureaus.
And then fox news happened. And CNN went down the toilet. and then we were all fucked.
Now you have guys like chris matthews as the titans of news. The man is basically a man-child who seeks constant validation of his ego from everyone around him. The NYT magazine article on him last week, despite being a friendly piece, was actually disturbing.
Yeah, it made me pity him to a level that exceeds my hatred for his idiocy. Which I didn't think was possible.
I also saw a panel on Larry King talking about tomorrow's primary yesterday that angrily reminded me why I never watch his show. That Charlie Rose and Tavis Smiley are on at the same time is just a wonderful coincidence. If somebody writes an article about how he's got alzheimer's or something and is only doing this to pay for his kids' future I'm gonna be pissed.
CNN International is a legitimately good news channel. Like really good, straight shit, that's helped along by the fact that CNN has bureaus all over the world.
AND THEY DONT LET US SEE IT.
Instead, we get wolf. fuck you cnn.
They dedicated just as much coverage to the Rev. Wright thing, but spent their own coverage talking about right-wing coverage of it and lambasting it as a conspiracy against Obama.
Their bias is subtle?
Personally, I prefer obviously biased news sources that aren't pretending to be 'objective' because you can more easily factor that in and understand where the story's vantage is coming from. Hello, Economist.
My problem with biased news sources is what was said before: they never spend time on things that matter. I would rather just browse Reuters or something and be able to skip the cat-stuck-in-tree stories.
The Economist, for instance, tends not to focus on cats in trees. There are others, but I forget the names as I only peruse them, and my work computer doesn't have all my bookmarks. National Review, before it went batshit insane would probably have fit that metric.
Favorite Chris Matthews moment: I was switching to MSNBC to catch Countdown (lol actual liberal bias, I know) and got there a minute too early so I accidentally caught some of the man child. Actual quote: "What has to happen before we get over this Rev. Wright thing?" That's a tremendous quote that I think sums up the media very nicely. We're gonna cover stupid bullshit, but it's not our fault, it's what the moronic little people want to hear!
Edit: I wish they were, because then it'd be less depressing.
See, this is my favourite thing about Fox News. Before Fox News came along, there were the right wing complaints of liberal media, but they didn't get that much attention outside of the right wing. After Fox News became quite popular and its bias well known, media bias in any direction became noticeable and discussed.
Mai-Kero is right - all media is biased in one way or another even with a sincere effort to avoid it. Being aware of it and applying the appropriate mental filter is the important thing. Even the Beeb, which is one of the most respectable news organizations, seems to have a certain opinion on some issues. After that it only gets worse and worse. Hell, even Fox seems pretty even handed when compared to the right, left, or other "alternative media."
If you ever need to talk to someone, feel free to message me. Yes, that includes you.
Libs do have refuge in group thought with blogs and forums though.
Yes, clearly the media that does not, and never has, pushed the (very right-wing) Administration on any issues at all is very liberal.
Fuck, if I didn't know better I'd think that they were being paid to cover Baby Anna Nicole Hollaway falling down a well 24/7 instead of any of the real issues.