Jump to content

Recommended Posts

  • Replies 1.3k
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Popular Posts

Some yank reporter on BBC breakfast this morning was being shown the very missile that delivered the chemical attack, I think he was with the same group of journalists as Robert Fisk was. I think my p

They should sever any alliances with Germany. They didn’t help much on D-Day either

Posted Images

People believe what they want, even intelligent people like Parky deride the media and then without a hint of irony say 1 in 50 articles are truthful. That sort of bizarre tautology just shows how inept people are at filtering nonsense. Russian propaganda was always at work, it's just become more effective due the real MSM, the Internet and social media. Also people are now willfully stupid due to their insatiable consumption of social media. I despair when I look around me at morons instagramming, facebooking, snapchatting and tweeting everything. The role of information has also changed, we are now becoming producers of media not just consumers which means that our relationship with the truth is changing too.

 

Despair?! There are peeps out there tweeting about poetry in this brave new world? Water water everywhere, motherfucker, why not enjoy a glass of refreshingly cooled wine? You're clearly following the wrong people. 

 

Seriously, though, I think the MSM has lost ground in trustworthiness in accordance with their actions, coupled with the consuming habits of their audiences.

 

I don't necessarily think the MSM are peddling abject untruth, but the media does lie by omission and push an agenda based news cycle (depending on their particular social/political proclivities).

 

It's truly difficult to get fact driven news these days. Everything comes with bias.

 

I think a massive part of the problem, in addition to what you mentioned with the changing way that media is produced, is tribalism of the population in watching/reading only what they already agree with. In turn, media outlets are almost duty bound (by a need for revenue) to play to those viewer tendencies. From there you get this vicious spiral of increasing bias and increasing pandering that continues to deepen on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

I'm guilty of leaning toward what I already agree myself at times. Everyone is bias, we can't help that, but we can all try not to be. In the end, a few try; most don't bother.

Link to post
Share on other sites

Despair?! There are peeps out there tweeting about poetry in this brave new world? Water water everywhere, motherfucker, why not enjoy a glass of refreshingly cooled wine? You're clearly following the wrong people. 

 

Seriously, though, I think the MSM has lost ground in trustworthiness in accordance with their actions, coupled with the consuming habits of their audiences.

 

I don't necessarily think the MSM are peddling abject untruth, but the media does lie by omission and push an agenda based news cycle (depending on their particular social/political proclivities).

 

It's truly difficult to get fact driven news these days. Everything comes with bias.

 

I think a massive part of the problem, in addition to what you mentioned with the changing way that media is produced, is tribalism of the population in watching/reading only what they already agree with. In turn, media outlets are almost duty bound (by a need for revenue) to play to those viewer tendencies. From there you get this vicious spiral of increasing bias and increasing pandering that continues to deepen on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

I'm guilty of leaning toward what I already agree myself at times. Everyone is bias, we can't help that, but we can all try not to be. In the end, a few try; most don't bother.

Good post.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's not really about journalists who on the whole are good people by default by vocation.

 

The real problem with regard to omission and bias is due to corporate ownership of the mass media. If you look at America 6 corporations monopolize over 80% or something of the news platforms. Corporate controlled media is there to oil the wheels of their masters and they gain a lot from war and Govt positions on a whole raft of issues, very rarely are they going to jeopardize the cosy relationship one that sustains power and makes money for all concerned.

 

The next layer of course is advertising and access - these are also captive to towing the establishment line of the day. The big media firms need breaking up as they are going to continue to pursue narratives about the world that are in their interest and often not quite true or basically propaganda.

 

The masses with the wrong information are powerless.

 

There was a lot of big time lying about Afghanistan till British soldiers started coming home and telling us what was really going on.

Edited by Park Life
Link to post
Share on other sites

You're a good lad, Parky, but you genuinely have no idea what you're talking about on this subject.

There are about 300 books on it mate. :lol:

 

You can go back and look at the main newspaper coverage leading up to Iraq 2 and you'd be hard pressed to find balance as they are mostly hysterical and as we now now clearly false. Very few publications challenged the cry for war. Half a million people have died in the middle east since.

 

iirc only the Washington Post called Bush out on the WMD thing and the CIA of all people. :D

 

''Dyke spoke at a conference at the University of London, singling out US television and radio coverage of the war, not the British media, especially Fox and Clear Channel Communications, the largest US radio group. “I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war,” Dyke said. “If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the US electronic news media.”

 

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger3.html

Edited by Park Life
Link to post
Share on other sites

I do agree that the media often plays a role in society that is contrary to the role the underclasses would have them play in an ideal society. 

 

I would also agree that there is something of an unholy alliance going on between certain media outlets and certain players in the world of politics and big business, but I wouldn't say it's ubiquitous in the West. Also, I wouldn't say it's driven by a grand conspiracy of clandestine forces.

 

I think, in a general sense, the answer is simpler in that it's a market supply and demand phenomenon. The media (like any industry) is always beholden to its stakeholders. I don't think that necessarily produces subversive behaviour on the part of the media, but it can.

 

There is corruption in the West, but it's less than other places, and I think we should avoid overstating it. It's important to keep a level head and remember that the West's media isn't like North Korean or Russian or Turkish media.

 

I believe the West scores lower on corruption than other places in the world because greed does have limits. Where other places struggle for survival tooth and nail, living hand to mouth, the West has the luxury of sometimes finding the edge of man's propensity for greed.

 

Basically, I think a Western media outlet with a profit making intention doesn't automatically curate its product to maximise profit. It only could do that because some people's edge is a little further out.

Edited by toonotl
Link to post
Share on other sites

I tend to agree it's more an unholy alliance in some sections (not all) than an out and out conspiracy. If it was a conspiracy we wouldn't be aware of it. ;)

 

Here in Germany there is much more analysis than editorial leading.

 

The other thing of course is that people don't really want too much dry analysis.

Edited by Park Life
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could even argue that privately controlled media at least allows for a divergence of interests. State controlled media, the default setting outside the west, is inherently skewed and manipulated. In theory a government can't control a private media.

 

Also the BBC did try and stop the Iraq war, Andrew Gilligan lost his job after the Hutton report accused him of misrepresenting the evidence. Dr Kelly lost his life in the whole debacle and Channel 4 were strong critics of the basis for war. I and a million other people marched in London against that war based upon what we had heard and read in the "MSM".

Link to post
Share on other sites

You could even argue that privately controlled media at least allows for a divergence of interests. State controlled media, the default setting outside the west, is inherently skewed and manipulated. In theory a government can't control a private media.

 

Also the BBC did try and stop the Iraq war, Andrew Gilligan lost his job after the Hutton report accused him of misrepresenting the evidence. Dr Kelly lost his life in the whole debacle and Channel 4 were strong critics of the basis for war. I and a million other people marched in London against that war based upon what we had heard and read in the "MSM".

CH4 and the BBC did a lot of good things I totally agree. The main culprits were the Murdoch media with regard to Iraq 2.

Edited by Park Life
Link to post
Share on other sites

You could even argue that privately controlled media at least allows for a divergence of interests. State controlled media, the default setting outside the west, is inherently skewed and manipulated. In theory a government can't control a private media.

 

I think both private and public media companies are capable of producing quality news without outrageous amounts of bias. I don't think we can say with any level of confidence that the nature of media ownership (public or private) predicts the nature of the product produced.

 

Whether government or private corporation there is equal capacity for corruption or proper conduct in both realms depending on the circumstances. 

Link to post
Share on other sites

Although I do loath much of the MSM's role in the Afghan,Iraq, Palestine and other middle east debacles cant help but agree there's still more awareness of the 'other side's' point of view in Western countries. Not sure about the US, they dont seem to give a shite about what they bomb generally, but Europeans do seem to be more aware. I remember that march Chez mentioned. While the muslim and Russian/China media likes to blame everything on the US and its allies I dont remember a single large protest/movement by any group here. In fact we became US 'allies' providing military bases, intelligence and logistics in the Afghan invasion after being threatened/bribed by the Bush administration. Something people here conveniently forget when blaming the whole Afghan mess and subsequent fallout on the US.

Edited by aimaad22
Link to post
Share on other sites

There are about 300 books on it mate. :lol:

 

You can go back and look at the main newspaper coverage leading up to Iraq 2 and you'd be hard pressed to find balance as they are mostly hysterical and as we now now clearly false. Very few publications challenged the cry for war. Half a million people have died in the middle east since.

 

iirc only the Washington Post called Bush out on the WMD thing and the CIA of all people. :D

 

''Dyke spoke at a conference at the University of London, singling out US television and radio coverage of the war, not the British media, especially Fox and Clear Channel Communications, the largest US radio group. “I was shocked while in the United States by how unquestioning the broadcast news media was during this war,” Dyke said. “If Iraq proved anything, it was that the BBC cannot afford to mix patriotism and journalism. This is happening in the United States and if it continues, will undermine the credibility of the US electronic news media.”

 

http://www.antiwar.com/orig/pilger3.html

The US is a different beast to here but you'll still find quality journalism there. If by the corrupt corporate MSM media in the west, you mean the Murdoch empire, then fair enough - though even there, there are still a couple of quality publications under his ownership.

 

Just enough with the broad brush generalisations, for the love of God. It's beyond tedious. On Iraq 2, for example, I was working in the newspaper industry back then, and I don't recall the quality UK media banging the war drum - quite the opposite in fact. I remember plenty of critical analysis, which probably helped galvanise 3m people take to the streets of London in the biggest protest march in UK history, with millions more across the continent.

Link to post
Share on other sites

 

 

I think a massive part of the problem, in addition to what you mentioned with the changing way that media is produced, is tribalism of the population in watching/reading only what they already agree with. In turn, media outlets are almost duty bound (by a need for revenue) to play to those viewer tendencies. From there you get this vicious spiral of increasing bias and increasing pandering that continues to deepen on both sides of the political spectrum.

 

I'm guilty of leaning toward what I already agree myself at times. Everyone is bias, we can't help that, but we can all try not to be. In the end, a few try; most don't bother.

 

Studies show that evidence opposing ideologically held views will entrench or even strengthen misconceptions people might hold...

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

Link to post
Share on other sites

Can I just point out that this has been one of the most informed, civilised and reasonable discussions I've seen on here. Which is remarkable when you consider that both toonotl and HF are involved and what their history is :D

 

Is it cos it's Christmas?

 

Also, fwiw I think you've all made some superb points, many of which I agree with. Even Gloom's ;)

 

Studies show that evidence opposing ideologically held views will entrench or even strengthen misconceptions people might hold...

 

http://rationalwiki.org/wiki/Backfire_effect

 

That is both fascinating and likely, IMO. I would argue that, while I aim to be vigilant against such things, that manner of phenomenon is likely to have happened to me in the past. I think it's important to read multiple news sources to combat this, but I must say that I do tend to just read a couple these days. But then, discussions on here perhaps make up for that and prevent the 'echo chamber' mentality.

Link to post
Share on other sites

It's pretty irrelevant to the issues with today's media. The landscape has changed massively.

I know mate we've been talking about it. You're like the hippo in the swamp - slow, almost invisible but with a big  bite. ;)

 

The Iraq war and journalism became the touchstone with reg to media bias, jingoism and patriotism which has led to much analysis over the years.

Edited by Park Life
Link to post
Share on other sites

Join the conversation

You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.

Guest
Reply to this topic...

×   Pasted as rich text.   Paste as plain text instead

  Only 75 emoji are allowed.

×   Your link has been automatically embedded.   Display as a link instead

×   Your previous content has been restored.   Clear editor

×   You cannot paste images directly. Upload or insert images from URL.

Loading...
×
×
  • Create New...