Embedded journalism = State run TV?

[Wake_up_call]

*Originally posted by El_Kabong *
**The question remains unanswered: why do YOU personally believe, as you apparently do, that outlets such as Pacifica are more trustworthy than the outlets you mentioned in your OP?
**

Here are some answers:

1- According to your own statement at the top of this post, the corporate media’s “TV news (and talk radio), generally considered to be the shallowest and least informative of media”.
2- No Corporate ownership = No profit agenda
3- More substance, less emphasis on special effects to get higher rating
4- Serving public interest rather than corporate interest.

Please note that I do not necessarily “trust” everything I hear on the alternative media. I tend to agree with fitzig post above that says “I teach my students to verify sources, and then to re-verify and cross reference them as much as possible to get the fullest picture they can”.

[Barbarian]

*Originally posted by MLS *
**Oh, please. Reporters should just kind of wander around in the desert looking for stories? **

<cough> Vietnam <cough> WWII <cough> WWI <cough> etc…

[MLS]

*Originally posted by Barbarian *
**<cough> Vietnam <cough> WWII <cough> WWI <cough> etc… **

I have had the impression from various (non-fiction) books I’ve read that in WWII the reporters were usually assigned to or associated with a particular unit. See Andy Rooney’s My War, for example. Whether you like Mr. Rooney’s style or message or not, it is first-hand info. It did not seem like reporters in Nam were exactly roaming around the jungle at random. But I wasn’t there, nor was I on the front lines in any other war, so I am ready to be corrected if I am in error.

[El_Kabong]

This seems to be straying from the topic of whether corporate ownership of some major media outlets equates to state-run TV, to the merits or otherwise of ‘embedded’ journalists in Iraq. My answer to the topic of the OP, as one might guess, is “no”.

Generally, when I hear criticisms of this nature, what the critic really seems to be saying is “Corporate media do not run enough stories with a political viewpoint that fits mine”. True enough, particularly if one has beliefs relatively far to the left; those voices certainly are rarely heard on the major television networks.

The assertion that there is any significant government control over content at the major US nets, though, strikes me as silly. There surely can be influence from the owners of a given net; that goes back to the days of the Hearst media empire. Nevertheless, I am not going to accept without evidence that, say, the board of GE somehow dictates what stories the various NBC networks run. If that’s the assertion, then I say, prove it. Take the stories from one hour of programming on any given day and tell me which ones were placed, or even influenced, by the government, and how this weas done. Then I’ll decide whether the OP’s assertion holds water.

The OP at one point seems to suggest that the approx. 70% approval rating for US prosecution of the invasion of Iraq is somehow the fault of the media; that the media have in some way convinced people to think that way. I think it’s pretty much the reverse, or at the least something of a feedback loop. The people think what they think, IMO; what the OP and some other seem to be saying is that they actually want the public to be told what to think, just told by another party.

The fact that corporate media rely on ad revenue for financing is the real key here; these outlets are going to tailor their output for whatever they think sells. If polls show that the majority of people are for the war, then on the softer pieces the media are likely to concentrate on stories that don’t upset that particular applecart. I see nothing meritorious in that, but it’s a far cry from claiming government control. If someone wants to assert that the government and media owners are in collusion to dictate to the public what to think about the war, go for it; but again, lets hear some specific evidence, not aimless ranting about the military-industrial complex.

As for Pacifica, I listen to a lot of their output, but the point I was trying to make earlier is that they have no less, and probably more, of an overt agenda than any of the corporate networks that we all so love to bash. Pacifica positions itself as relentlessly anti: anti-corporate, anti-two-party system, etc. That position has certain merits, but it also means that Pacifica routinely and completely ignores any news that it deems may conflict with its ideological agenda. I would no more rely on Pacifica for accurate information than I would any other single news outlet, of any stripe. That’s not having an ax to grind, that’s just me trying to get to the truth of a story.

Finally, I’d get a whole lot more excited about so-called “corporate media” if we were all somehow forced to accept their version of events. As the OP so ably pointed out, any thinking person with Internet access has a huge number of low-cost choices for news, from all over the map. So in the end, what’s the beef, exactly?

Whew, guess I’m about talked out on this subject. I’ll leave the floor to others.

[EasyPhil]

Originally posted by El_Kabong *
**
The OP at one point seems to suggest that the approx. 70% approval rating for US prosecution of the invasion of Iraq is somehow the fault of the media; that the media have in some way convinced people to think that way. I think it’s pretty much the reverse, or at the least something of a feedback loop. The people think what they think, IMO; what the OP and some other seem to be saying is that they actually want the public to be told what to think, just told by another party.*

So how would you explain the large number of people believing that Iraq had something to do with the plane attacks 0f 9/11? For those people that don’t read and rely soley on a particular media source, and this accounts for a lot of people, what they see in hear is going to shape their perception of what is real. The power of the media is really evident when a false or erroneous story is put out.

**
The fact that corporate media rely on ad revenue for financing is the real key here; these outlets are going to tailor their output for whatever they think sells. If polls show that the majority of people are for the war, then on the softer pieces the media are likely to concentrate on stories that don’t upset that particular applecart. I see nothing meritorious in that, but it’s a far cry from claiming government control. If someone wants to assert that the government and media owners are in collusion to dictate to the public what to think about the war, go for it; but again, lets hear some specific evidence, not aimless ranting about the military-industrial complex. **

There’s no need for government control of the media when the media in it’s native form acts in the way that you need them to act. Media driven by the need to “entertain” and “sell” is inconsistent with the peoples need to be “informed” and “educated”.

[El_Kabong]

So how would you explain the large number of people believing that Iraq had something to do with the plane attacks 0f 9/11?

Well, maybe I’m not watching at the right time, but I have yet to see a major media piece that claims Iraq WAS behind 9-11.

For those people that don’t read and rely soley on a particular media source, and this accounts for a lot of people, what they see in hear is going to shape their perception of what is real.

Sure it might, but the problem here is more the intellectual laziness and willful ignorance of the people you refer to, is it not?

Media driven by the need to “entertain” and “sell” is inconsistent with the peoples need to be “informed” and “educated”.

But the people have a broad array of choices of from where they get their information and education, if only they’d take advantage. There must be some reason, if we presume that infotainment is irredeemably bad, that people tend to prefer it anyway.

By all means, though, continue to shoot the messenger, if that’s what you want to do.

[Wake_up_call]

*Originally posted by El_Kabong *
**
The assertion that there is any significant government control over content at the major US nets, though, strikes me as silly. There surely can be influence from the owners of a given net; that goes back to the days of the Hearst media empire. Nevertheless, I am not going to accept without evidence that, say, the board of GE somehow dictates what stories the various NBC networks run. If that’s the assertion, then I say, prove it. Take the stories from one hour of programming on any given day and tell me which ones were placed, or even influenced, by the government, and how this weas done. Then I’ll decide whether the OP’s assertion holds water. **

After the last episode of Phil Donahue show, when he blasted the government’s war policies, he was fired on the spot, and his show was replaced with “Countdown Iraq”. NBC said that the decision was due to the low ratings of the show compared to Bill O’Riley. But the question remains: How come Phil was not given a notice, at least one more episode, so that he could express his opinion as to why his show was soabruptly cancelled?

And then there was the case of Bill Mahr’s “politically incorrect”. Why was that “placed” or “weas done”?

[Abe]

*Originally posted by El_Kabong *
The OP at one point seems to suggest that the approx. 70% approval rating for US prosecution of the invasion of Iraq is somehow the fault of the media; that the media have in some way convinced people to think that way. I think it’s pretty much the reverse, or at the least something of a feedback loop. The people think what they think, IMO; what the OP and some other seem to be saying is that they actually want the public to be told what to think, just told by another party.

Hang on. Bush has been merging and mixing messages when it comes to Iraq and terrorism, effectively trying to make the two one and the same issue and employing a variety of methods to do so, including outright falsehoods such as fabricated evidence as well as unsupported claims.

If 70% of Americans approve of the war in Iraq based on Bush’s output, we can assume that Bush has managed to convince the audience of the need for attacking Iraq based on his arguments – arguments that do not hold up to scrutiny, as has been demonstrated over and over on this very Web site.

Bush convinced the above substantial majority using the mass media. I won’t speculate as to who controls the media, but it’s fairly safe to say that a medium that does not denounce the president’s lies and call attention to his falsehoods is very likely to be on his side in some way or another (because of bias, incompetence, political affiliation, or what have you).

The fact that corporate media rely on ad revenue for financing is the real key here; these outlets are going to tailor their output for whatever they think sells. If polls show that the majority of people are for the war, then on the softer pieces the media are likely to concentrate on stories that don’t upset that particular applecart.

This sounds like a post hoc rationalization. It may be correct, but without evidence supporting such a flagrant link between editorial and sales/advertising departments how can we tell?

Do 70% of Americans believe the war in Iraq is justified as the president claims because that is what they want to believe, or because the media told them so? The former suggests the American public are war-hungry self-righteous cretins; the latter suggests some level of collusion or at least agreement (even just in philosophy) between the media and government.

Is the media – or just the corporate media – really just pandering to popular opinion rather than presenting news influenced or uninfluenced by the government? I am not sure it is. Additionally, many media have clear policies in place demarcating editorial and sales/advertising activities. Having dealt with quite a few media myself I know that, in effect, sponsors of a medium will usually be treated more favourably than non-sponsors, though I don’t believe this extends, as a rule, to pandering to the viewership (beyond story type selection, that is).

Finally, I’d get a whole lot more excited about so-called “corporate media” if we were all somehow forced to accept their version of events. As the OP so ably pointed out, any thinking person with Internet access has a huge number of low-cost choices for news, from all over the map. So in the end, what’s the beef, exactly?

The problem is that the majority is not composed in any way of “thinking persons”! As is painfully obvious even on these boards, the majority of people don’t bother with research and verification before spewing statements resulting from bias, knee-jerk, or ignorance rather than accurate fact and reason.