The evil media

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist] Do you feel that the media is government controlled or market controlled?[/QUOTE]

Both. The market controls the media (assuming a certain company owns a stake in a news company) when the news either directly or indirectly badmouths a product from their owner. Case in point: several years ago, I recall a plane crash occured due to engine failure and made national news. I forget exactly which flight this was at the moment. While various sources mentioned the engines involved in the plane crash were GE engines, NBC didn't mention the engines belonged to GE because GE owns NBC. Nothing really extraordinary there, but still, there's controlling of some news elements only for business concerns, not journalistic.

The government apparently controls the media when tits and blood start flying everywhere on tv and video games and too many parents start raising hell because they're too lazy to do the job themselves.

In my opinion, how can Fox call themselves "Fair and balanced" when all they do is bitch about how the poor Republicans are picked on and how any backlash from those who oppose governement at this point in time is an enemy. Poor people, according to O'Reilly are that way because they choose that lifestyle...blah blah blah

Granted, NPR definately has a different spin on the news, and they are far more critical of our political leaders.

In my own opinion, Fox is nothing but Yes people to our current administration. If Democrats win the next election, I'm sure they'll change their focus, and the government will become all evil.

BTW, I currently heard that the federal govt wants to cut funding for public programming. It that happens, there will probably be more channels like Fox.

I think at this point in time, probably the best sources for news would be on of the major networks. I don't think CNN is bad, but I think they do love to dramatize things to the max.

O'Reilly also claims that Kerry would get rid of Christmas. If he had seen the Grinch who stole Christmas he would know that if kerry did steal christmas he would later learn the true meaning and become its biggest proponent.

[IMG]http://i17.photobucket.com/albums/b61/FearlessFife3000/FixNews-180.gif[/IMG]

I'm a reporter at a newspaper in New York. So take what I say as you will.

Media is market-driven, purely and simply. People want to read about the last season of Friends more than they want to read about the war in Iraq. You play to the whatever is going to grab people's attention and then you take it from there. Since most people are stupid and uneducated about everything ever, they tend to go more toward television shows. Lots of newspapers have been expanding their entertainment sections over the past few years to deal with this.

How many reporters were covering the Michael Jackson trial, and how many are still currently actively embedded and working out of Iraq, doing reports on a daily basis? There were more at MJ's trial.

Now, to anyone who says the media has a liberal bias, you are so beyond wrong it hurts my brain. Statistically, reporters tend to be liberal while editors and owners tend to be conservative. Most reporters are young so this makes sense. But there are only a few major corporations that own the major media outlets. Those owners do have input on what happens in their property. Big businesses tend to be conservative and Republican. Go where the money is.

Still, market-driven. They want to make more money, so they go with what's going to draw people in.

Anyway, government doesn't control reporters or editors and it doesn't even control the people who owns the corporations. It's in bed with those people, and they're all shaking hands and trying to make each other happy. There's no control invovled.

This government has also trampled the ability to get access to information. It's remarkably secretive, more than any other, and the media has responded by being so desperate for stories that it lets them be secretive for the little bits and pieces it dangles every now and again.

This is a long arguement and it's making me angry.

It boils down to this: The whole thing is market-driven with the ultimate owners of these media outlets in bed with the GOP. The dollar rules and people are stupid cows, willing to read about their favorite celebrity than an actual issue that affects their lives.

And fuck Bill O'Reilly. Fuck him, Tucker Carlson, Sean Hannity and MOST OF ALL ANN COULTER. They should all be shot in the fucking face. Dead. They are stupid people that influence other stupid people, therefore perpetuating the cycle of stupid on this planet.

You are only entitled to your opinion if you are fair and intelligent. These people are neither.

EDIT: I know there's at least one person that will probably lecture me on saying this stuff, so I'll say as plainly and clearly as possible: I am not happy, nor do I condone, nor do I perpetuate, the current state of affairs. I'm in journalism for what I hope may be a changing of the guard in 20 years, when the reporters today, infuriated by the current state of affairs, move up the ranks and start taking the reigns.

But newspapers will be dead in about 10 years, so I'll probably be working at a magazing by that point.

that's all fuckin idiotic. i feel like i've replied to this theme so many fucking times i sound like a broken record talking about people who complain the media is one way or another. but

don't be such a dipstick consumer and you won't have a problem. there is not and should not be one single be all end all reliable source. if you give enough of a shit to care about what you're getting from the media, you should care enough to know the background of your news providers, and be reading more than one paper - readily available online for free in most cases other than the wsj - and checking in on a few monthlies, for a diversity in source. you should know that fox is bullshit rightist propaganda and that npr is mostly fair with an occasional hippie lefty slant here and there, and you should stop complaining that no one is spoon feeding you a glistening turd of news brilliance when you wake up every morning. it's up to you to be an educated news consumer. it's all out there. wake up.

you should ask some journalists what they think about how they do their jobs, perhaps. but don't presume to know anything about the market of which you speak because you read one article on salon.com and now you feel media-savvy.

as a reporter, and yes, i'm one of those, whom you all seem to know so much about, i have some strong feelings on the subject in terms of my engagement with the community i cover. and i'll tell you what - if it were the almighty dollar that drove me every day, i could at least afford to pay my bills, so don't ever tell me that's how it works. you don't have a fuckin clue. this is a hard business driven by passion for probably 90% of the people in it. we're not all slick-haired tv anchors.

edit - i just nodded to phoenix and there he is. i'll read what he's saying now. the "idiotic" remark i make there has to do, obv. with the assumptions made prev, not his. i haven't read his yet.

k - read ap. i agree with his assessment of the structure of a news company. usually the owners are conservatives and the reporters (young peopole - usually childless - people who will hand themselves over to low pay and a hectic, frequently undesirable schedule) tend to be liberals. i try like heck to hide my opinion. i'm covering the city council race now, and i'm happy i don't live in city limits, so i'm not involved personally as a voter.

i'm pleased, by the last two papers where i've worked, that i can write about whatever i want. i drive around and meet people and go to their homes and businesses, and i do my damndest to find out what their questions and concerns are and follow that up with a story answering it in the paper each week. they appreciate it. they reference my stories in their meetings, like it's a sort of bible of their community doings. i work in the most politically active part of the city, and they really do care. i make a point of not even leaving meetings early as a gesture of my commitment to being there, and hearing everything. i've just worked it out to cosponsor an upcoming debate, and i've spent the summer profiling every single candidate in the race for a series that will hopefully be an informative, useful tool for the voters. but goddamn it, it's not about the money.

and that said - anderson cooper's mom is gloria vanderbilt, but that's not the case for most people. some reporters i know live with their parents just so they can do the job. it's tough to sustain a living doing it. and the business is shrinking - we're all understaffed. it's passion and service that keeps me going.

all those personalities - jay severin and bill o'reilly - make the rest of us look bad. and they shouldn't. people are lazy, and they swallow what shoots out to them first. but they are not our figureheads, just because they're the loudest. they do not represent me, and what i do, make no mistake.

Vidalia-

I was in no way trying to imply that all reporters are liberal communist scum. If you got that impression, sorry. Calling NPR "mostly fair with an occasional hippie lefty slant here and there" and FOXNEWS "bullshit rightist propaganda" makes your political views quite clear.

Look, Fox is obviously slanted to the right and I doubt you would find anyone outside of the network claiming otherwise. But COME THE FUCK ON! NPR is so far to the fucking left its almost communist. Bill O'Reilly is clearly a pompous asswad- I agree with all of you on that.

This thread did a good job at confirming my hypothesis though-

1. If you are liberal you probably think media is run by facists.
2. If you are conservative you probably think media is run by communists.
3. If you are a member of the media you probably think media is run and produced by truth seeking totally impartial bastions of objectivity.

Also, I agree that the average american would rather hear about Lindsay Lohan that Osama Bin Laden however, why is this the case? Could it possibly be that the media pushes celebrity gossip down out throats so that movie makers can make more money? Is it the chicken or the egg? Who is to blame for the prevalant interest in celebrities in our culture? Media greed or American stupidity?

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]
This thread did a good job at confirming my hypothesis though-

1. If you are liberal you probably think media is run by facists.
2. If you are conservative you probably think media is run by communists.
3. If you are a member of the media you probably think media is run and produced by truth seeking totally impartial bastions of objectivity.[/QUOTE]

If you remember your science and social studies or sociology classes, you'll know that confirming a hypothesis from less than 10 responses isn't valid. Who are you viewing as liberal and conservative here?

Obviously I'm not confirming it out of hand. Its simply evidence that my opinion is probably based in reality. Besides, since I'm a dipstick consumer of media I feel I can make blanket statements at will.

Just saying. I disagree with #3 though. Well, it can be true, but chances are if you're involved in the media and you really believe everyone's out for the whole truth and nothing but, especially in media outlets with larger profiles such as tv stations, then you're a fool.

Undertow, I believe you are drastically underestimating the effects of self-delusion.

How so?

Sometimes, people working in an organizaiton will rationalize the aims/motives of the group in order feel better about what they do. For example, one would probalby find that an abnormally high percentage of military people support the war with Iraq.

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]Sometimes, people working in an organizaiton will rationalize the aims/motives of the group in order feel better about what they do. For example, one would probalby find that an abnormally high percentage of military people support the war with Iraq.[/QUOTE]
It may be slanted, but there's a long jump from "slanted" to "you probably think media is run and produced by truth seeking totally impartial bastions of objectivity."

Why are you seeking generalizations? Ah, because that's the root of the problem. People, not just Americans, but ALL people, want simple, boiled-down stories and solutions to the issues in the world. Sorted and categorized into something they can easily digest, not unlike the high-fructose corn syrup that expands the waistlines of kids everywhere today.

If you plan on taking people's thoughtful, honest answers and editing them down to base generalizations, then you're just as bad as any media outlet you may intend to decry here.

i think a lot of the old guard, hard news, just the facts ma'am, mainstream journalism is dead. There are no new Walter Cronkites. The CNN-Fox ratings war has killed those days.

But there is still a ton of courageous journalism happening, just not on TV.

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]Vidalia-

I was in no way trying to imply that all reporters are liberal communist scum. If you got that impression, sorry. Calling NPR "mostly fair with an occasional hippie lefty slant here and there" and FOXNEWS "bullshit rightist propaganda" makes your political views quite clear.

Look, Fox is obviously slanted to the right and I doubt you would find anyone outside of the network claiming otherwise. But COME THE FUCK ON! NPR is so far to the fucking left its almost communist. Bill O'Reilly is clearly a pompous asswad- I agree with all of you on that.

This thread did a good job at confirming my hypothesis though-

1. If you are liberal you probably think media is run by facists.
2. If you are conservative you probably think media is run by communists.
3. If you are a member of the media you probably think media is run and produced by truth seeking totally impartial bastions of objectivity.[/QUOTE]
i did no job of confirming anything of whatever my politics might be. what are those politics? i do a solid job of remaining hard centrist. you don't think fox is bullshit? you think npr is raging leftist? how did you gain the experience and knowledge to generalize the way you are in this thread? you're out of your element, donnie.

Yeah, vid- I'm clearly out of my element. I never said that I didn't think fox was bullshit, I was just making a comparison of your treatment of fox vice npr. If you think NPR is centrist, fine. You are extremely mislead in that but fine. I think fox is no more right leaning than NPR is left leaning. Is that a bad thing? Maybe so. I would prefer my news to be completely objective but objectivity is lacking from most news I read. To get even close to objective news regarding events in the United States one usually has to turn to foreign news sources. Luckily, in my job, I have access to pretty much every foreign news source in the world.

My generalizations were hyperbole in reaction to our need to quit being "dipstick consumers." You presume to know my level of involvement in media and my experience with news. You don't know shit about that.

I analyze and interpret intelligence for a fucking living- I'm quite certain I can recognize subjectivity and political slant when it exists.

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]My generalizations were hyperbole in reaction to our need to quit being "dipstick consumers." You presume to know my level of involvement in media and my experience with news. You don't know shit about that.

I analyze and interpret intelligence for a fucking living- I'm quite certain I can recognize subjectivity and political slant when it exists.[/QUOTE]
I don't presume squat. You stated explicitly your "hypothesis", which means that you're here to prove some asinine point. You also stated that the responses here "confirmed" your point. However, your "point #3" states that "If you are a member of the media you probably think media is run and produced by truth seeking totally impartial bastions of objectivity." If you actually read all of anxious phonix's post, he clearly stated quite the opposite - that the higher-up people are not fair or balanced, but market driven and generally conservative.

If that's how you interpret intelligence, then... oh fuck it I give up. You want to call your statements hyperbole now, even though none of your 'hypothesis' had anything to do with consumerism. So in other words, you're talking out of your ass to get a rise out of people. Congratulations, you win.

"you don't know shit" about the respective ownership, management and operation of fox and npr then which is clear from your sadly warped analysis.

you know what, jase hit the nail on the head. good luck with that intelligence job of yours. sounds like it's working out well for ya.

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]Sometimes, people working in an organizaiton will rationalize the aims/motives of the group in order feel better about what they do. For example, one would probalby find that an abnormally high percentage of military people support the war with Iraq.[/QUOTE]

They are the fools I'm referring to.

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]3. If you are a member of the media you probably think media is run and produced by truth seeking totally impartial bastions of objectivity.[/QUOTE]

So, yea, when you start an argument it's fair to listen to how people respond. You didn't do that with my post. You couldn't have. Most of the people on the ground level of media, the reporters, want objectivity and truth. The ownership class does not. Publishers want input although they were generally born into their position and never worked as reporters. Editors wish they were still writing, and they want to extend their influence over what goes in the paper so they can leave some kind of stamp on what they work with. (Not all, but some). And the ownership class is in bed with big money interests.

I've worked in the "media" for the past 4 or 5 years. A lot of my friends work in the media. I have friends across the country who work in internet journalism, newspapers and television. And not a single one is happy with how the business is run. Mostly because it's looked at as a business.

That was a broad generalization. And a stupid one, at that.

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]Also, I agree that the average american would rather hear about Lindsay Lohan that Osama Bin Laden however, why is this the case? Could it possibly be that the media pushes celebrity gossip down out throats so that movie makers can make more money? Is it the chicken or the egg? Who is to blame for the prevalant interest in celebrities in our culture? Media greed or American stupidity?[/QUOTE]

Movie makers? Are you fucking kidding me? Once again... MONEY! This is the fault of the people who consume media. It's market driven, and a big part of the market is the people who read the newspaper or watch the television. (The rest is advertisements). The movie makers have no input into what goes into the paper. They're so desperate for coverage, a lot of them have to bend over backwards to get it. And that's taking into account that the major companies that own most major news outlets also own movie studios. Movie studios have no input. That's the most off-base, stupid comment I've ever heard about the media. And I've heard a lot. American stupidity is to blame for interest in celebrity culture, and from there media greed pushes is because they know people are going to buy Jennifer Lopez's sex secrets over Osama bin Ladens declaration of jihad.

Seriously, you have no fucking idea what you're talking about. I think hell froze over because I'm finally agreeing with Vidalia on something. We're usually fighting.

Get a job in the media. Study the business voraciously, because you love it with all your heart and hope one day it might not be the broken institution it currently stands as. Then come back and try to discuss this. You're proliferating stupidity among people who don't know any better, and that sucks.

EDIT: To clarify about movie studios having to bend over backwards for coverage -- celebrities get coverage, movie studios do not as much. And it doesn't matter how many shitty movies Tara Reid makes, she'll always be in the gossip pages. It does not mean she will make the news pages when she's shooting a movie, or even get a good review. Anyway, if movie studios were in bed with the newspapers, every movie would get good reviews.

ugh. you know, i don't know what i'm doing still checking this thread. it's making me a little ill. nonsense and misinformation does that to me. keep it up, ap. i know it's not easy to make your living this way, and this kind of toolish discouragement doesn't help. it's not that cn made an educated opinion after studying his materials - he made one with a shallow sample and charged forth into battle like every other malcontent underinformed twit who wants to be a media commentator. so a word to the wise - check your sources before you make threads like this.

one of my favorite threads to date...

tee hee, mommy, slow down, there's a car wreck.

Okay, I'm game.

The government and market have largely been fused in the American Empire. You can't get elected to office without whoring to the same groups, no matter what party you run under; and you can't even get nominated by those parties if you're not already a whore to those groups.

What are those groups? Some are obvious 'corporate' entities, Fortune 500 companies with global economic power. Others are less obvious. AARP claims to speak for Americans over the age of 55, but it does so without consulting any of them outside AARP's offices. The UAW claims to speak for auto workers, though it does so with mandatory dues paid by people who just want a job.

The National Organization for Women claims to speak for women, though I know no women who belong to the group, far left feminists, republican homeschoolers, none of them seem to even be aware of the organization that claims to speak for them.

I'm not even convinced that FOX is less biased than other news outlets, only that they are differently biased, and Americans are so conditioned to a homogenous news diet that a center-left guy like BIll O'Reilly qualifies as a member of a right-wing conspiracy.

When was the last time you heard Bill O'Reilly, or better yet Rush Limbaugh or Sean Hannitty, call for an absolute end to the income tax? To social security, to all government-funding of medical care?

In 1976, Ronald Reagan said he'd do away with the Department of Education. A fine idea, but four years later when he was elected, he spent eight years without even cutting the budget of that worthless department.

As far as NPR being 'centrist,' folks, be serious. NPR is far left, only slightly more moderate than China's Cultural Revolution, owing mainly to the lack of military backing. The very fact that they're a government entity taints them. If General Motors had a news outlet, how far would you trust it with news about the auto industry? Well, NPR is part of the fucking government, and almost every story they report on has a 'government' angle. NPR is Pravda with McStarbuckifcation.

Ever see the flick 'Crazy People?' Where the ad exec talks about advertising a product until people buy it not out of desire but because they can't escape it? That's a pretty accurate assessment of big business in America, attitude/marketing-wise. And all of Congress, both sides of the aisle, is in the pocket of that mentality. A few might take money from some who are enemies of another, but no one in that graft gives a shit about you. As long as you'll punch the clock and take your paycheck to Wal-Mart, Amazon, etc., they're happy

Interesting post chixulub.

For vid et al: you can all kiss my fucking ass. I started a thread simply to generate discussion. If you think I did it to generate a flaming trainwreck of an argument you are wrong. But what the fuck ever, I'm done with this piece of shit forum anyway. I try to start a discussion and I get shit on. Sorry if I stepped on your fucking toes and I'm so fucking sorry there are people in this world who don't share your OPINION. Because that is exactly what it is, a fucking opinion. I don't even know why I'm responding to someone so fucking ignorant and BLIND to think NPR is CENTRIST! That is the most amusing thing I've read all week.

Well, I'm off to go train some more bomber pilots to kill terrorists. I'm sure you NPR loving comie leftist scumbags would have a problem with that. If so, get the fuck out of my country.

in the words of Dr. Lecter:

(eyes closed in delightful concentration)

"thank you clarice... thank you."

too much fun you kids.

[QUOTE=capitalistnihilist]Interesting post chixulub.

For vid et al: you can all kiss my fucking ass. I started a thread simply to generate discussion. If you think I did it to generate a flaming trainwreck of an argument you are wrong. But what the fuck ever, I'm done with this piece of shit forum anyway. I try to start a discussion and I get shit on. Sorry if I stepped on your fucking toes and I'm so fucking sorry there are people in this world who don't share your OPINION. Because that is exactly what it is, a fucking opinion. I don't even know why I'm responding to someone so fucking ignorant and BLIND to think NPR is CENTRIST! That is the most amusing thing I've read all week.

Well, I'm off to go train some more bomber pilots to kill terrorists. I'm sure you NPR loving comie leftist scumbags would have a problem with that. If so, get the fuck out of my country.[/QUOTE]
that wasn't very intelligent, honey.

geez, the characters this place draws with its magnets

NPR is very much a part of America. America has a long tradition statist entities posing as free institutions. The nice thing about the American Empire is the prosperity. I've known a homeless guy, well his car was his home, so he had a home but not an address; he had a TV that plugged into the cigarette lighter of his LeSabre. And he never went hungry, despite failing to participate in the 'market' in a more meaningful way than stealing cigarettes.

Also, fewer concentration camps. I mean, yeah, there's problems with the Reservation system, and there was the Japanese internments in WWII, but it's been over a hundred years since we actively engaged in outright genocide. Its a kinder, gentler police state.

It is, regrettably, a jailable offense to be black and/or poor. If you share my view that the state does not have the right to dictate what you can/can't ingest, every nonviolent drug offender in the system is a political prisoner. Illustration: If Rush Limbaugh's Hispanic maid was caught with the pills, she'd be looking at some hard, federal time.

Can color be overcome? Sure, look at O.J. There's a for-sure double homicide culprit who walked because he had deep pockets. As the late Johnny Cochran put it, you're innocent until proven broke.

Oh yeah, this thread was started to address media questions. I had brought up the fact that NPR is a branch of government, more or less. Well, with that McDonald's money, they're partly 'private.' They get some dough from white liberals who are dumb enough to pay for something twice on the pretense that it is free of commercial taint. Though the 'sponsored by' bit amounts to a commercial. Businesses like Kellogg’s don't donate money to PBS kids programming out of the goodness of their heart, they do it because they get a sneaky-pete commercial on the children's programming they can't buy advertising on in other ways.

And the major media outlets, being part of big businesses, are not necessarily that 'private.' The private sector at the scale of a Fortune 500 company is very much in bed with the state. Call it graft or campaign contributions; call it intimidation or lobbying, it's the same thing. Rupert Murdoch is no cleaner (or dirtier) than the head of any other megacorporation, and he has the same interests. A stable marketplace of people who will punch the clock, fill their wallet with credit cards on terms that make loan sharks look liberal, and consume.

If you take a journalism course in school, you get taught that there's this 'objectivity' that is the target, but that is a joke. If you believe there is such a thing as objective reporting, the joke is on you.

As far as 'fair and balanced' goes, it stuns me how little fairness and balance was required to make the average American Empire subject notice the Fox network. It's a lot like the way casinos publicize the big 'winners' to draw in the losers who, of course, are the vast majority who pay for those conspicuously electric operations.

i may have never read a thread with more talking out of one's anal sphincter than within this very one. who knew, the posters of cp.net were the living embodiment of edward r murrow and everything he stood for! huzzah, the trumpet of truth, knowledge and experience blasts far and wide across the land. i've learned so much. stupid, pennywhore journalist i am, i've been enlightened!

Vidalia, you're one sweet onion, but what the hell are you talking about?