"The Media", whipping boy of the new millinium?

Great Debates
21

I have faith that if the media collectively decided to raise the level of debate, the public would rise to it. I also have faith that it will never happen.

I thought of this when I was reading a book about bizarre entertainment of the past. (Ricky Jay’s Learned Pigs & Fireproof Women–a great book, BTW.) It showed posters advertising “Toby, the Sapient Pig”. My girlfriend commented that no one would use the word “sapient” anymore since few people would know what it meant. I said that people don’t know what it means because no one uses it, and that if the media collectively decided to widen their vocabulary, the public would eventually follow suit.

I think the news media is bad now, but will probably get worse as the corporate giants continue to engulf the local outlets and merge into even bigger giants. It’s getting harder and harder to even spot the conflicts of interest.

Also, in my experience, anyone who says the media has a “liberal slant” means it doesn’t have a conservative enough slant for their tastes. I’ve actually heard people say, “I can’t stand the way the liberal media slants the news. Thank God for Rush Limbaugh.” Then again, my favorite news magazine is The Nation–but at least I don’t deny its liberal slant.

Dr. J

22

It can’t be terribly surprising the media gives us what they think we want. They’re there to make money…in the end little else matters to them.

Unfortunately what the public as a whole seems to want is sensationalism. The nightly local tv news in Chicago is nothing more than a laundry list of who was murdered, who’s house burned down and the weather and sports (sometimes a with a 30 second ‘human interest’ story thrown in that’s rarely of interest). That may be sad but how many of us would watch in depth coverage of the city council meeting instead? I know I would (at least more than I do now but I refuse to watch the local tv news as it now stands) but you can probably see that most people would change the channel or fall asleep.

The problem with the media disregarding the truth is a tough one. On the whole I think major media outlets (large newspapers and tv networks) try to give the truth even if they are sometimes careless in their pursuit of the whole truth. What I see more frequently is the ‘spin’ they care to give the truth thus slanting the report to their liking while still being 100% truthful. Following is an example I got ages ago in a writing class that illustrates this nicely…

**Two cars are in a race. A Russian car and an American car. The American wins the race. The following day the Russian newspapers report the race this way: In the race yesterday the Russian car came in second while the American car came in next to last. **

It’s probably impossible to be 100% impartial. We all bring our experiences to our communication and can’t easily sever ourselves from them. Still, some are more impartial than others. Heck, some make no bones at all of being totally partial to a given side. That’s fine too as long as the news source makes their stand apparent. It’s the ones that wrap themselves in a cloak of impartiality and throw sneaky spins on the news they’re reporting that you need to look out for. There’s a thread around here somewhere asking if you can still support abortion after reading the linked article. The link points to a newspaper article that specifically states its fairness in trying to present all sides and let you, the reader, make-up their own mind about the issue. When reading the article it is very apparent that the report has a hard anti-abortion bias. Irrespective of where you stand on the abortion issue sensationalistic journalism cloaked as ‘unbiased reporting’ is inexcusable. I have no problem with such an article being written but the writer should be upfront as to his/her intentions.

If you think that we are all smart enough to ‘read between the lines’ and make our own decisions you’re wrong. I got caught getting taken in a week or so ago myself (very embarrassing) and a consider myself somewhat of a professional skeptic.

Not to pat ourselves on the back but I’d wager the posters to this board are of a better than average educational level (taken as a whole…I know I’ve proven my stupidity more than once around here). Still, that is a far cry from many who think The Globe (that rag you see at supermarket checkout counters) is as reliable as The New York Times. To get an idea of how out of touch some people really are I heard an interview with two different soap opera stars that play dislikeable characters. Both related stories of getting slapped by women while in public because those women didn’t like what their characters were doing on the show.

23

I can’t remember the man’s name, but he was a former editor of the New York Times, and served as a witness for the defense in a libel trial down in Tennessee. When asked on the stand about printing the truth, he replied, “The New York Times is not in the business of truth, it’s in the business of facts.”

Journalists are under major pressure to write informative stories on a tight deadline that will sell papers or attract viewers/listeners. Most of them do a damned good job. They engage in fact-checking to the best of their abilities, but in some cases, they may not even know that a resource exists. They cannot sit all day and call every person who might be remotely involved in a story–news moves fast, and the business is highly competitive. They publish the facts to the best of their extent to obtain them. Which is why, generally speaking, libel suits must show “reckless disregard for the truth.” Simply making a mistake in fact-checking should not be sufficient to punish or condemn the media, and certainly should not result in a tort.

Glitch, have you ever offered your services to the media at any level as a resource for facts on self-defense? If not, you’d be surprised at how many news outlets would be thankful to have a knowledgeable source available. That’s one of the services my company provides; we allow our clients to register as experts or knowledgeable sources in their industry or field, then we send out media advisories on topics in the news and take inquiries from journalists, connecting them with useful sources.

24

Pthalis said:

I’m not defending Right Wing Crazy rags here, but how many people get their “news” from these sources? Not many, I’m sure. Contast that with the number of people who get their news from major metropolitan daily newspapers. Now, say all you like about unbiased coverage and such, but a large majority of newsrooms in the country (and I have to admit, if sdimbert comes along to pester me, that I’m basing this on anecdotal evidence) are filled with people of a liberal, Democratic bent. I don’t think that’s a secret to anyone who’s ever worked for a newspaper.

Unfortunately, that bias sometimes affects the slant of the stories (and all stories have a slant; there’s no such thing as completely unbiased coverage), and, even more importantly, the selection of which stories to run, where to place them, how many grafs to give them, and which events to cover. Honestly, anyone who thinks that major print media outlets are unbiased are fooling themselves.

However, the way things are covered doesn’t come from demand by the public, at least not in the newsroom I worked in as a reporter for five years. Instead, direction came from editors, the reporters themselves, and occasionally the publisher. The editors and reporters were overwhelmingly liberal, while the publishers tended to be more conservative. But readers had very little input on what got covered or how much coverage something got. So, while I’m sure TV “news” is affected by polls and such, newspapers rarely are.

In certain markets, though there are fewer and fewer of them now – the Denver newspaper war just ended this week, for all intents and purposes – dual dailies more or less guaranteed diverging editorial viewpoints and reporting decisions. But in one-paper markets, onely one viewpoint is represented, and that’s bad. Monopoly really isn’t good for anyone.

Have I babbled on long enough? :slight_smile:

25

Touche. Just as I would expect anybody else to do, I must honorably submit to your obvious knowledge of the issues where I clearly have none.

26

Certainly not a majority, but probably more than you think. Hang out over at the LBMB for a while, and you’ll find a whole slew of people who cite WorldNetDaily and newsmax.com as the only truly unbiased sources. (Not that anyone should look to the LBMB to find a mainstream viewpoint.)

I spent some time over there de-bunking a story from Newsmax about Elian’s doctor having two “nefarious and worrisome” drugs taken away from her on her way into the US. These “nefarious and worrisome” drugs were diazepam (Valium) and phenobarbitol, both of which are sedatives also used as anti-seizure drugs. It makes perfect sense for a doctor to have these in her bag (especially in Cuba, where drugs are not so regulated). The story (which read more like an editorial) didn’t care to bring up that point, as it got in the way of their message that the Klinton/Castro/Reno axis was planning to drug poor little Elian into submission. And it was being cited as the unbiased truth.

Like I said, this is not a very common position, but an increasingly vocal one.

Dr. J

27

RE: the idea that the media was better in days of yore.

Television sensationalism and tawdriness aside, the media in general is probably doing a better job now than they ever have in our history.

Only 25 years ago, there were essentially only three sources for national television news - the three major networks. Think about what a filter that was on the information that got out to people. How easy it was for networks to push their own agendas.

Yes, a lot of media outlets are now slanted to one ideology or another, but collectively, they provide more of an opportunity to get at ‘the whole truth’ than has ever been provided before.

What is the news? What is the truth? The second a reporter puts what happens into words, it is inherently an opinionated slant.

One person calls the Million Mom March an attempt to wake up legislators and save our children. Others call the exact same event a misguided and perhaps cynically orchestrated effort to erode Constitutional gun rights. Who’s correct? Pick your opinion and you’ll find a media outlet that caters to it. Hopefully, you’ll get some sense of opposing viewpoints’ takes on news events as well.

Anybody who gets their news from television is silly, anyway. Haven’t you ever heard that all the words on an entire news broadcast wouldn’t fill up one page of a newspaper?

By its very nature, television can’t get in-depth on stories, and stories that aren’t as sexy visually are underplayed.

But I agree with the idea that portraying the media as the enemy is a dangerous one. There is one profession specifically listed for protection in the Constitution - the press. And it’s for good reason.

This country most certainly would not be a better place without the watchdog role of the media. Even though coverage of Washington D.C. has largely eroded from that role, and politicians and reporters seem to have become one big social club, the watchdog concept still works on more localized levels.

28

Oh, I realize that not many (percentage-wise anyway) people actually get their news from things like this. I just get a kick out of their rantings on the “biased media” without any apparent realization of their own bias.

Most fringe publications are really just so much preaching to the choir, communal reinforcement of their worldview. They also do serve as recruitment literature for those primed and ready to enter the fold though. I believe Watchtower and Awake! are good examples here.

29

A man sitting naked in a tree said:

Amen, brother. :slight_smile:

30

Doctor J said:

But even mainstream media do this, albeit in a more subtle way. Almost every day, you can see instances of this in your local newspaper. Look for pro- or anti-American, pro-environmental, pro-business, pro- or anti-gun slants. You’ll see them everywhere.

Here’s an example, from the front page of the 12 May 2000 The Denver Post:
Headline: Proposal to aid kids
The story: The mayor of Denver, in essence, wants a new tax to fund some children’s programs.

Now, why would they choose a headline like that? It’s not a fact that the proposal is going to aid kids. In fact, many anti-tax people would definitely dispute that, saying that taking money away from parents in the form of taxes will hurt children, or will only benefit certain children.

I know it’s difficult to write a headline that imparts the meaning of the story and still fits: I’ve done it. But I think the media needs to take a little more care in what they put out there. They tend, intentionally or not, to undermine their own attempt at unbiased reporting with their headlines.

And unless you’re inside the newsroom, you don’t see the really bad part: what they decide to run vs. what they decide not to. That’s where the real abuse happens. If you’re skilled, mangeorge, you can read between the lines; but you can’t interpret what isn’t published.

Not that I’m against the media. Far from it. I cherish their role in a democracy. However, I think J-schools need to do a better job of imparting ethics to their students, and media outlets need to do a better job of maintaining those high standards. This pursuit of “the next scoop” isn’t driven necessarily by the public. It’s more a factor of the egos of editors and reporters. And unfrotunately, high standards tend to fall by the wayside.

31

What if there were a way to take advertising out of the mainstream press, including television? Is such a thing even possible? How much would a newspaper cost if it were entirely subscriber supported?
Consumer Reports (and others) puts out a magazine without ads, and the cost isn’t outrageous. Advertisers have a lot of influence on content, and to be free of that influence would have to have some effect on what the editors could publish.
I realize that a daily would be more expensive than a monthly (or a bi-monthly), but does anyone have any idea how much it would cost?
Just curious. The ad agencies would scream bloody murder.
Peace,
mangeorge

32

That’s not what Dan Rather said!

33

Anyone who doesn’t seek out and cast a critical eye on all of the information that they can is silly.
Peace,
mangeorge

34

I would submit, therefore, that most people are “silly.”

35

Listen David B: This forum is Great Debates. You of all people should know you shouldn’t post things that are so universally true they are undebatable. :wink:

36

Could it be that the media have gone downhill because the quality of media workers is decreasing? I’ll guess that the bright kids go into the hard sciences, leaving the second- or third-best to be reporters.

37

Tominator - as a reporter, I’ll try not to take offense at that last statement (especially because I believe it’s probably true!).

More to the point, I think college kids today are going where the money more than ever before. And while there have been recent improvements in pay for journalists, it’s still down near the bottom rung pay-wise for a four-year degree.

At the same time, pay in other professions (and fields of study) has risen at a far greater rate.

38

Timinator2 wrote:

Nonsense. The bright kids go into the High Tech Industry, 'cause that’s where the money is. The hard sciences are usually practiced at universities with grant money.

39

Milossarian said:

There is definitely some truth to that. I would love to quit my current job and go to work as a journalist (preferably a science journalist). However, starting at the newspaper (for example) would give me about a 30-50% pay cut. I’m sorry, but I have a wife and kids to support!

So instead I do freelance writing on the side. Ah well.

40

The rules for journalists seem to have changed, too.
For example: Before Watergate and Viet Nam the Washington press corps seemed content to look the other way at certain stories.
The sex life of the President was a no-no. The sex life of the head of the FBI would be a Communist plot.