Can you trust the media anymore?

[Tigervx]

well, i mean, should the media be giving out that plan about nuking enemies? what if they thought of it as a threat and nuked us? shouldnt they keep that a secret?:nervous:

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by D. Dark [/i]
[B]


What I'm getting at, is that usually in important news, the whole tale isn't told by the media, to their own gain... [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]To some extent that is true. But people are far too negative about the media.

Bear in mind also that it is physically [i]impossible[/i] to cover [i]all[/i] news stories.

That is why it is very important for any informed viewer/reader to make sure that they focus on multiple news sources. It's the only way that people can form a truly informed view.

Voodoo - I don't think I missed the point at all. Based on what you had said, I was merely saying that it is wrong to be so cynical about the media. It's a damaging state of mind.

The media shouldn't necessarily be the "be all and end all" of people's sources for information. Whether or not media is biased isn't the point -- the point is, do you absorb a wide enough range of media and then make your own decisions and form your own thoughts about issues discussed in the news?

To imply that we're all sheep who are lead by the TV news or whatever other news is a drastic oversimplification.

If that isn't what you were saying, then please explain what you [i]are[/i] saying more clearly. :)[/color]

[Guest Voodookanaka]

right, i couldnt find what i was looking for but ill attempt to explain it in simple terms anyway.

Any news, paper or form of media you see is aimed towards certain areas of society, or towards the culture for which it is to be broadcast, Star Tv will not put a BBC documentary on about dictatorship for example (extreme example. but true and leads to a very interesting story bout news corp... nvr mind) Any media you read will no doubt influence your opinion, (even if it is oppositional reading) (oh and it will, u cant look at a cat without some part of your brain registering its a cat) and so by selectively choosing what is to be the media.


as a few examples....

every year since Rupert Murdoch (Media Baron, rich bloke, strong anti-royalist) has had his power the amount of ppl who support the royals has fallen. Labour remain in power (also for him) Neither the sun or times newspapers dare publish anything promoting the royals, the same gos for anything broadcast on sky Tv or sky news.



i cant really explain, ill just have to hope u can make some sense out of my ramlings.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by Voodookanaka [/i]
[B]



i cant really explain, ill just have to hope u can make some sense out of my ramlings. [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]Okay, yeah...I see your point.

But my contention still stands. Certainly, media will always aim its reporting to certain groups of society.

Rupert Murdoch owns Fox News -- and he apparently approved the whole "right wing perspective" idea. That is why, when watching Fox News, you see nothing but Democrat/Clinton bashing and very little substantial news.

This doesn't mean I'm a huge Clinton supporter, but it does mean that there is a very obvious bias going on there.

But having said that, as I stated earlier, it's important to look at multiple news sources if you can.

If I watch Fox News and I [i]know[/i] that they are biased in favor of Republicans...I can watch their reports and [i]know[/i] how seriously to take some of their statements.

Also, news is news. The news you get is usually not doctored or changed...but rather, it's more a case of what specific news items are shown or not shown.

News is an area where editorializing isn't acceptable. That's why I talk about Fox News -- as they often editorialize their news.

I guess what I'm saying is...news itself is often non-biased. It is the editorializing surrounding that news...and the news items that are presented as "important" news items that really make the difference.

I see what you're saying, Voodoo...and I agree. But also, I would say that if you are wary of such media bias...it is definitely wise to read as much media as you can, so that you can get a 360 degree view of the news.[/color]

[Charles]

Methinks I'm entering this topic a little late. I don't know if I can really add anything, but I'll state my little opinion.

I think that the media is definitely biased. If you're watching the morning news, chances are you'll hear about the latest murders or drug busts in an urban neighborhood. Yet, when something happens in an upperclass suburban area, it's conveniently "left out" or "covered up." Sometimes it's not what the news [I]is[/I] telling the public that's biased, it's what it [I]isn't[/I] telling the public.

Also, they tend to over glorify some things. The O.J. Simpson case is the best example. Here's a guy who was accused of murdering his wife and her supposed boyfriend. There's probably many cases like this, yet we, the public, received hours upon hours of coverage. It's basically, the media looks at the best angles and what can score the most ratings. If a famous athlete or actor commits a crime it's liable to take up about twenty five percent of the broadcast or a big spot in the paper. If an average man commits the same crime, the public will get a mere glimpse at it.

Ah well, that's just my two cents.

[Char!]

[SIZE=1][B]C'mon, guys. Humans define their history by misery and suffering. Look in ANY history book. Not ONE covered event is about anything good. It's war this, war that. Suffrage here, movement there, an occasional mass conspirancy. And regardless of the outcome they ALL began from some sort of disheartening crap. Nobody really cares about positive news.
But when the media covers the things we subconsciously demand, we call them biased brainwashers. I believe what we've got here is a double-standard.
Wow. Something intelligent from ME. I think I'll stop while I'm on my high note... :D[/B][/SIZE]

[D. Dark]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]

[color=royalblue]To some extent that is true. But people are far too negative about the media.

Bear in mind also that it is physically [i]impossible[/i] to cover [i]all[/i] news stories.

That is why it is very important for any informed viewer/reader to make sure that they focus on multiple news sources. It's the only way that people can form a truly informed view.

[/QUOTE]

You've missed the point. It is obvious that not all news stories can be covered, since there is not enough manpower or resources.

But that is not what I said, as I meant that in a news story some angles might not be told, even though they are all researched. However, I retract my statement that most stories are biased, as they are not. There are many examples of this.

The smartest of us, like you, James, know when news is biased, because you just know. But sometimes it can be made so subtle that only the sharpest minds will notice biasim. Many lazy people who do not do a lot of thinking will except the story, as it is easier than concentrating.

Take for example the film, "Wag the dog". Tell me if you have or have not seen it. If not, I'll explain it to you.

[TheVenomFactor]

I will just put this as blunt as I can. I have never trusted the media and probably never will.

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by D. Dark [/i]
[B]

You've missed the point. It is obvious that not all news stories can be covered, since there is not enough manpower or resources.

But that is not what I said, as I meant that in a news story some angles might not be told, even though they are all researched. However, I retract my statement that most stories are biased, as they are not. There are many examples of this.[/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]I understand that. And that is why the viewing of multiple media sources is important -- so that any untold aspects of news stories can be read/viewed. This is particularly why the Internet can be such an important tool.[/color][QUOTE][B]

The smartest of us, like you, James, know when news is biased, because you just know. [/quote][/b]

[color=royalblue]But you see...that's just not good enough. You can't say "because you just know". You have to provide me with evidence of that. Of course, in each specific case, you can often tell (especially if you have some forethought about that particular media) that it is biased or not.

However, media bias isn't always media bias. Media bias is sometimes [i]viewer bias[/i]. What do I mean by that? Take Fox News for example, once again. I often hear them talking about the "left-wing, liberal media". Where is this left wing media? So much media today is actually very conservative. This "left wing mass media" just doesn't exist. Thus, on the one hand, they are trying to say that the media is biased to the left...whereas it is actually [i]they[/i] who are biased to the right.

See what I mean? Viewer bias plays a huge role -- media isn't nearly as biased as many think, rather, people often view media as biased because it might be saying something that they personally disagree with. Thus, that is a case of viewer bias.[/color][QUOTE][B]

But sometimes it can be made so subtle that only the sharpest minds will notice biasim. Many lazy people who do not do a lot of thinking will except the story, as it is easier than concentrating.[/QUOTE][/B]

[color=royalblue]I agree -- once again, with Fox News. But frankly, only an idiot will sit there and totally accept everything they are told without question. This is not what I am asking for at all though -- I am saying that an objective viewer should make it their business to make decisions about the news that they see. This is the only way to minimize media bias effectively.[/color][QUOTE][B]

Take for example the film, "Wag the dog". Tell me if you have or have not seen it. [i]If not, I'll explain it to you.[/i] [/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]I haven't seen the film, but I'm totally aware of its premise. I'm sorry, but do you take me for an utter moron? lol

I'm actually [i]in[/i] the media myself, and you're kind of sitting there trying to explain media bias to me as though I'm five years old. lol

My answer is yes, I totally understand what you're saying.

I am merely pointing out that it is the responsibility of the viewer to ensure that they remain objective and that they make decisions about what they view. A large part of that is reading/viewing media from as many different sources as possible.

Anyone with at least half a brain won't be fooled -- bias in media is often pretty easy to detect. I think that to suggest otherwise greatly insults the intelligence of most media viewers. When the media screws up, you can bet that there are always a lot of people there to pick them up on it. So in a way, the media is actually quite a bit more transparent than you might think.[/color]

[D. Dark]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by James [/i]
[B]

[color=royalblue]I haven't seen the film, but I'm totally aware of its premise. I'm sorry, but do you take me for an utter moron? lol

I'm actually [i]in[/i] the media myself, and you're kind of sitting there trying to explain media bias to me as though I'm five years old. lol

My answer is yes, I totally understand what you're saying.

I am merely pointing out that it is the responsibility of the viewer to ensure that they remain objective and that they make decisions about what they view. A large part of that is reading/viewing media from as many different sources as possible.

Anyone with at least half a brain won't be fooled -- bias in media is often pretty easy to detect. I think that to suggest otherwise greatly insults the intelligence of most media viewers. When the media screws up, you can bet that there are always a lot of people there to pick them up on it. So in a way, the media is actually quite a bit more transparent than you might think.[/color] [/B][/QUOTE]

Okay, well if you had said that you were in the media from the beginning, then my arguement wouldn't have go on for half as long. As you have an insight into media itself, you have a better view than I do, so it is really pointless arguing with you knwo.

I'm sorry if at some points you feel like you were treated in a bad way, it wasn't meant to seem that way, so sorry, lol.

I don't mean to be insulting, and media bias usually is easy to spot, but though people won't believe what they are told, they cannot be bothered to use the effort to find the truth behind the story, so...lol

I didn't mean to insult your profession or you, I'm just angry at what's going on lately, and don't forget that in the past media was an incredible tool for making people believe a false truth...I just don't want it to happen again, but it might happen again one day...

So, sorry...

[Harry]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by D. Dark [/i]
[B]I feel like I can't trust the media no more. So much lying, filtering of information, scandals, lies, lies and more lies.

Nothing can really be belived anymore, because governments and people in power twist the news we recieve to their benefit if we can. I estimate the amount of unfiltered, unbiased news we recieve is around...10%. That's why people find it difficult to imagine situations in other countries, such as...well, think of a fitting example.

It's all propoganda, and I started disbelieving the media greatly after seeing "News" from the Cold War, and the days of "McCarthyism". [/B][/QUOTE]

better questions is, can you trust politicians that supposedly vote for you in congress, but really vote for which company pays the higher?

[James]

[QUOTE][i]Originally posted by D. Dark [/i]
[B]

Okay, well if you had said that you were in the media from the beginning, then my arguement wouldn't have go on for half as long. As you have an insight into media itself, you have a better view than I do, so it is really pointless arguing with you knwo.

[/B][/QUOTE]

[color=royalblue]Actually, I said I was involved in media about three times lol.

I'm not specifically insulted by you or anything...but I'm sick and tired of people going off on the media when they clearly have no idea what they're talking about.

Even being in the media doesn't make me a total media expert, but I know enough to understand that such a cynical view of the media isn't helpful.

I'm often critical of the media myself, but by the same token, I haven't totally given up on the media either. There is a lot of good media out there -- but it's definitely the concern of the viewing public to be intelligent enough to make decisions about the reports they see.[/color]