Topic: The media

[Ghandi]

I've been reading the latest book by Barack Obama, The Audacity of Hope, and he talks about the media in one of the chapters in the book. He talks about, while he may have attended thousands of town hall meetings, even the lowest rating local news channel gets hundreds of thousands of viewers. Because of this, politicians are largely dependent on the media.

I've been following the election in the United States for the past few months, and I've been acutely aware of two things: my information is largely dependent on the media and the media can control what information that I collect. There has been a lot of talk lately about how the media has been more lenient on Obama than Hillary, and I have noticed the influx of more critical Obama press lately. I'm not saying that this is a good or bad thing - I just realized the tendency of the media to change en mass.

Part of this deals with the fact that conflict garners ratings. If you watch some of the 24 hour news networks, the amount that they play up the conflict of group x vs. group y, particularly when there isn't much conflict, is ridiculous. They want blood - they need blood. As a nation, are we bleeding because of it?

Edit: What the fuck is with my grammar today? Made some changes in the redundancy of my wording.

[Quemaqua]

It's an interesting topic, and one I'm way too tired to take part in now.  Still... I do see it as a problem.  The news isn't what it once was, and even what it once was had some pretty loathsome tendencies.  Impartiality and "just reporting the news" are fine except for the fact that it's a business, and in order to get more business one has to sell something.  And that pretty much fucks up any attempt at benevolent reporting right there forever.  Frankly, I don't think it can ever happen, at least not with things the way they are now.

[idolminds]

I think the thing I notice most is how, if you went simply by the news media, the race appears to be Hillary vs Obama. Republican (and other party) candidates only ever get mentioned in passing. Perhaps part of that is I rarely watch televised news, but thats the impression I get. And I wonder if thats just a coincidence or if thats the impression they want to give.

[Ghandi]

Well, that's not entirely true. McCain is reported. But the real race at the moment is Hillary vs. Obama. Tomorrow will answer a lot of questions as to what will happen in that race, but the only reason that McCain is not being reported is that the real news is with the pertinent Democratic race. That's not bias, it's just newsworthiness. But that doesn't mean that it's not true.

Part of the problem in my interpretation of the media is that I've grown up with the current media situation. I'm told that reporters decades ago (Cronkite?) were more objective and effective than those today. I don't doubt these accusations simply because I look at the media today and don't question that it could be better. I'm given sensationalism and partisan reporting when I want the truth. The market of free ideas be damned, capitalism demands profitability, whatever the cost.

[beo]

this is one reason why i'm glad of the bbc's news service. funded by the tax payer, with no advertising and no product to sell. it's a public service and is independently reviewed to make sure it stays as such. i'm sure it's not perfect, but the way it's set up ensures that sensationalism stays at a minimum and that facts, rather than opinions, get reported (at least for the most part).

[nickclone]

I don't think they're being harder on Hilary, I just think Obama handles himself better than she does. Hilary literally whines and cries while Obama stays calm and cool. Hilary flings mud at Obama and none of it really sticks, I'm starting the see the Clinton's in a negative light.

[Antares]

Part of the problem in my interpretation of the media is that I've grown up with the current media situation. I'm told that reporters decades ago (Cronkite?) were more objective and effective than those today. I don't doubt these accusations simply because I look at the media today and don't question that it could be better. I'm given sensationalism and partisan reporting when I want the truth. The market of free ideas be damned, capitalism demands profitability, whatever the cost.

I've always resented this idea a bit.  I find it to be mostly a bunch of old farts complaining about "kids these days" and how much better times were in the past.  Whatever.

[Cobra951]

I've always resented this idea a bit.  I find it to be mostly a bunch of old farts complaining about "kids these days" and how much better times were in the past.  Whatever.

The news has always been a business.  The difference I see at the highest levels is that silly entertainment has crept into what used to be a straight-laced serious broadcast.  Some correspondents and anchors were exceptional, with Walter Cronkite pretty much defining the cream of the crop.  There's no reason that can't happen today, except their audience is likely to be smaller.  We have more than 3 ways of getting live broadcasts now.