US media

[mr rosewater]

By that I meant that the coverage is more patriotic than before the war, portraying the war in a more justified way ignoring the backgrounds that show that it's not as patriotic as in reality - by skipping facts that doesn't fit in this ideology.

I also consider the Fear-Mongering after 9/11 as non-realistic, portraying an global enemy which doesn't exist in a scale as it was portrayed.

So you are prejudice and you wish to know if the U.S. media is as well.

 

[RandFan]

I didn't vote because none of the choices reflect my view.

US News has never been neutral though many in the news business have honestly sought to be neutral and in the past the news room was largely independent and seperated from pressures of marketing. Much of that has been lost however. It's fair to point out that many editors and reporters are intelectually honest and strive for objectivity. However many are not.

In any event, given even the best case scenario, reporting news is not the same as a double blind scientific experiment. How does a reporter control for his or her own bias? Wanting to be objective is not a gurantee of objectivity. A scientist can want to be objective but without proper controls there is no gurantee that the scientist will be objective.

 

[Oliver]

So you are prejudice and you wish to know if the U.S. media is as well.

Nope - I said my impression could be prejudiced - and therefore influencing my neutral view.

 

[Oliver]

I didn't vote because none of the choices reflect my view.

US News has never been neutral though many in the news business have honestly sought to be neutral and in the past the news room was largely independent and seperated from pressures of marketing. Much of that has been lost however. It's fair to point out that many editors and reporters are intelectually honest and strive for objectivity. However many are not.

In any event, given even the best case scenario, reporting news is not the same as a double blind scientific experiment. How does a reporter control for his or her own bias? Wanting to be objective is not a gurantee of objectivity. A scientist can want to be objective but without proper controls there is no gurantee that the scientist will be objective.

That's the problem in my understanding of US-News. Most of the german media rely on factual coverage - otherwise everyone will jump on them which would result in lost of credibility and therefore economic deficits. In the worst case kicking them out of business.

Now the prominent example Fox shows that there isn't such an unwritten rule guaranteeing neutrality - so I guess Fox viewers feel okay if they don't get the facts - even if they know it's biased.

 

[mr rosewater]

Oliver, forgive me but you don't have a neutral view, you have a severe misunderstanding of many of today's events, an extreme bias against the U.S., but please carry on have fun.

 

[Oliver]

No! Bad! Government regulation would only make it worse. Let the FCC decide what constitute non-neutral reporting? The last thing news outlets need is the FCC lording over them like an ogre. And how do you rule something like an editorial which is, by nature, a biased account or commentary on something? Trying to enforce neutrality on the media would only make things worse and I'd imagine it's also way unconstitutional.

Oh, I didn't know that the FCC is also biased and not a representative of the different media-parties. I have to look it up to understand the FCC, their members and what their tasks are...

 

[Oliver]

Oliver, forgive me but you don't have a neutral view, you have a severe misunderstanding of many of today's events, an extreme bias against the U.S., but please carry on have fun.

Well, I'm here to learn. Thank you for not helping me to get a better picture.

 

[Pardalis]

Go Ollie, go! Find those Evil Americans.

 

[MelBrooksfan]

Oh, I didn't know that the FCC is also biased and not a representative of the different media-parties. I have to look it up to understand the FCC, their members and what their tasks are...

It wouldn't matter if you built a completely impartial, neutral computer to do it. Trying to enforce neutrality in reporting is still a bad idea.

 

[mr rosewater]

Well, I'm here to learn. Thank you for not helping me to get a better picture.

Now thats really funny, you do make me laugh.

 

[brodski]

Can someone please give me a working definition of neutrality in the news media.

 

[Pardalis]

Can someone please give me a working definition of neutrality in the news media.

neutrality = he who shares Oliver's opinion.

 

[ConspiRaider]

No! Bad! Government regulation would only make it worse. Let the FCC decide what constitute non-neutral reporting? The last thing news outlets need is the FCC lording over them like an ogre. And how do you rule something like an editorial which is, by nature, a biased account or commentary on something? Trying to enforce neutrality on the media would only make things worse and I'd imagine it's also way unconstitutional.

Tremendous oversimplification, and wrong.

Things have gotten worse in the U.S. broadcast media AFTER the Reagan Administration killed the Fairness Doctrine. After they pulled the teeth from the FCC and made it a corporate rubber stamper.

Broadcast media - because of its finite and limited bandwidth - used to have to operate "in the public interest" as top priority. Everything else was secondary, including profit-making.

That's over with. Big Corporate - huge, multi-billion-dollar companies - runs broadcasting now, essentially unrestricted. Big Corporate LOVES the right-wing because the right-wing does not like oversight or regulation or safety considerations or anything imposed that could benefit the public's welfare. It's very very simple. All those things cost Big Corporate money, cut into their net income. They want max profits.

The Disney conglomerate owns ABC "News". Do you think ABC is ever going to do any kind of serious expose on Disney happenings, or happenings within any of its other holdings? Viacom owns CBS "News". General Electric owns NBC "News". Microsoft owns a portion of MSNBC "News". Time-Warner owns CNN "News". And Big Rupie Himself owns Fox "News".

Big Corporate public relations. That is the American broadcast media today.

The saviour? What you're looking at now. The Internet is currently the only safety net available where savvy surfers can still access a semblance of what is "real" news. Flawed as the Internet is - its role in this area is a godsend. Big Corporate certainly hates that aspect of the Internet. So far - there is little they can do. But give them time...

 

[thinkingaboutit]

Oliver I think you'd be very interested in checking out this website.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

 

[MelBrooksfan]

Tremendous oversimplification, and wrong.

Things have gotten worse in the U.S. broadcast media AFTER the Reagan Administration killed the Fairness Doctrine. After they pulled the teeth from the FCC and made it a corporate rubber stamper.

Broadcast media - because of its finite and limited bandwidth - used to have to operate "in the public interest" as top priority. Everything else was secondary, including profit-making.

That's over with. Big Corporate - huge, multi-billion-dollar companies - runs broadcasting now, essentially unrestricted. Big Corporate LOVES the right-wing because the right-wing does not like oversight or regulation or safety considerations or anything imposed that could benefit the public's welfare. It's very very simple. All those things cost Big Corporate money, cut into their net income. They want max profits.

The Disney conglomerate owns ABC "News". Do you think ABC is ever going to do any kind of serious expose on Disney happenings, or happenings within any of its other holdings? Viacom owns CBS "News". General Electric owns NBC "News". Microsoft owns a portion of MSNBC "News". Time-Warner owns CNN "News". And Big Rupie Himself owns Fox "News".

Big Corporate public relations. That is the American broadcast media today.

The saviour? What you're looking at now. The Internet is currently the only safety net available where savvy surfers can still access a semblance of what is "real" news. Flawed as the Internet is - its role in this area is a godsend. Big Corporate certainly hates that aspect of the Internet. So far - there is little they can do. But give them time...

When I am called wrong, I tend to expect my ideas to be addressed. However, given that you list the internet as the saviour of the situation, it seems that you agree that the FCC or government stepping in to enforce neutrality would't work. However, you never directly examine that. Pointing out that the media is corporately owned illustrates.. nothing. We know that. Of course that connection will be used to filter out stories. However, the FCC can't fix that. Don't like the media? Don't watch.

 

[ConspiRaider]

While the Two-Party-Mentality sounds nuts to me:
If you're right, then even the "right-winger" should see that the Media is behaving pretty strange concerning facts. So why are there no regulations?

The "Two-Party-Mentality" is a misnomer, not nearly as nuts as you might think.

We have a big filtering process in this country, concerning candidates. Did you see the Democratic candidate debate for President? We're 18 months away from that election, and 9 were in that debate. For the Republicans, 10 in their debates.

If Americans choose to pay attention, our political system works rather well. It's only when a huge portion of Americans becomes complacent - and not vigilant - that things political begin to skew at dangerous angles.

That's what you've seen over the last 6 years - the result of extremism in American politics. We're now engaged in getting some balance back, but it takes time. We Americans are getting very rudely reminded of what happens when we assume our political system "runs by itself".

 

[Oliver]

Go Ollie, go! Find those Evil Americans.

Watch out, the Canadians are my next target. You remember the environment scandal surrounding the oil in Alberta, don't you?

 

[ConspiRaider]

When I am called wrong, I tend to expect my ideas to be addressed. However, given that you list the internet as the saviour of the situation, it seems that you agree that the FCC or government stepping in to enforce neutrality would't work. However, you never directly examine that. Pointing out that the media is corporately owned illustrates.. nothing. We know that. Of course that connection will be used to filter out stories. However, the FCC can't fix that. Don't like the media? Don't watch.

No, I'd like the FCC to return to the concept of doing their duty and ensuring a level of fairness, and balance, in broadcast media. Especially when it comes to political reporting, coverage and commentary.

The Internet is essentially an accidental - and partial - antidote to the problem. But the broadcast media still has incredible clout in affecting and even shaping the mindsets of its consumers. That entails oversight and responsibility. Big Corporate can never be counted on for that. They are interested in profits and ratings and money ONLY. Therefore, the referee must come from another angle. Can you provide a reasonable alternative other than democratically elected representatives of our federal government?

Okay here's a very quick example: In November, 2005, Armed Forces Radio FINALLY got the Ed Schultz radio talk show into their lineup. Before that, for politically-dominated talk radio - all they had was Rush Limbaugh. Whom we all know is a right-wing, hate-spewing nutcase. Who mocks Michael J. Fox and his disease. Who promotes Barack Obama as the "magic Negro". Who uses the terms "liberal" and "Democrat" as if they were vile cuss words. That's all our troops were exposed to, was Limbaugh. Finally - there is someone to blunt his hate-filled rhetoric in Ed Schultz. But that took major lobbying of the federal government before they reluctantly allowed some fairness and balance...

 

[Oliver]

Oliver I think you'd be very interested in checking out this website.

http://www.fair.org/index.php?page=101

Thank you very much for this interesting article, Thinkingaboutit.
Basically this is the way I see it, too. But what I don't understand is that nobody uses this in their campaign since this is no secret that Broadcaster like FOX aren't neutral.

But I guess the stint is that the Media will push any candidate down who will stand up against the Media. And that's a pretty sad and dangerous discovery, making the Media more powerful than the Government, doesn't it?

 

[Ziggurat]

Completely wrong. The right-wing dominates the U.S. press and you know it, Zig.

And yet, journalists are overwhelmingly democrats. Hmmm....

Rest of the world: Pay no attention to Zig, he's a right-winger.

Would it make any sense if I said, "Pay no attention to ConspiRaider, he's a left winger"? No, it wouldn't. Why is that? Maybe because in my opinion, political orientation doesn't automatically invalidate someone's viewpoint. But apparently that's the viewpoint you're pushing here. How wonderfully progressive of you.

The U.S. mainstream media is heavily controlled and dominated by the right-wing extremists.

That's the reason why a turd-spewer like Ann Coulter can get away with calling presidential candidates "faggots", and be regularly featured on new/talk/commentary shows across the broadcast spectrum.[/QUOTE]

And why there was such a universal outcry from the entire media against Rosie O'Donnel for claiming that fire never melted steel before the WTC collapse. Yes, Coulter is a shrill wingnut. As I said, the media isn't monolithic.

It's why Limbaugh, Hannity and Savage are rated 1, 2 and 3 in the extremely influential radio talk show market.

They're rated 1, 2, and 3 because audiences actually want to listen to them, in contrast to Air America, not because any corporate masters force audiences to tune in. And since when is talk radio equivalent to all of US media? Hell, since when has it even resembled the composition of the media market as a whole? Since never.

But most importantly - it's why we still have Bush as President. Clinton was impeached (in the House, not convicted in the Senate) because he had an affair with an adult woman.

No, he was impeached because he broke the law by lying under oath. It was a stupid decision to have him impeached, but let's be honest about what he was impeached for. Or is honesty too much to ask from you?

Join us. We'll forgive you.

Piss off. I don't need your forgiveness.