> The Media- what do you think ?

[Skid Row Joe]

What do you think ?

Are the Media in general responsible, do they seek the truth, or do they do whatever they need to do , to get a story, whether or not the story is correct, accurate, or do they just focus on getting it on TV or to print, before the competition ?

They talk about the Public's right to know, freedom of the press, etc., but very little about the responsibilities of the press, to the public...almost as some would say...the trust that society needs to have in the Press to ensure that they actually do seek the truth ?

What do you think when they ignore cogent stories?

Your opinion.

[powerpig]

I worked in Media for over 20 years. I think you're trying to over generalize here. Like any other business, there are good ones and bad ones. I've worked both small and large markets. In my experience, the small market news media seems to be the most inept as far as fair and balanced reporting.

[t walgamuth]

Thanks for posting a thread that can be considered seriously.

The media falls short of the ideal in most cases, but freedom of the press is absolutely essential to the survival of our freedom.

It is pretty frightening that Rupert Murdock is buying so many media outlets. For all the shouting about leftists journalists I find a lot more media is owned by rightists who will stifle stories that do not fit their ideas of correct politics.

There is a movement politically right now to allow big money folks to buy more and more radio and tv stations. This is a real threat to our freedom.

Tom W

[Botnst]

News media have to make a living so their primary responsibility is (and should be) to make a profit. There are many, many ways to make a profit in the news. They vary from informative and truthful to entertaining and bizarre.

It is up to the consumer to decide what he or she wants from the news. Where we put our money determines the type of news media we get.

B

[tankdriver]

By media I assume you mean news outlets. I agree that a free press is essential.

Originally Posted by Botnst

News media have to make a living so their primary responsibility is (and should be) to make a profit.

Agreed. They are not there to tell us the important events that occur in the world. They are there to make money. Their content is designed to make money and to have people tune in. Neither of these requires reporting information that the citizenry should know (or would want to know). So long as you are talking about them or listening to them, they don't really care what they provide to you.

It is up to the consumer to decide what he or she wants from the news. Where we put our money determines the type of news media we get.

B

This I disagree with. Americans (those free market/conservative types especially) have this mistaken belief in the power of the consumer. The consumer wields a portion of power, but hardly one that regularly changes markets. It's overly simplistic. I hear the same argument about gas prices. Some (most) markets are driven by the providers, not the consumers. A free market does not require a powerful consumer.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by tankdriver

...

This I disagree with. Americans (those free market/conservative types especially) have this mistaken belief in the power of the consumer. The consumer wields a portion of power, but hardly one that regularly changes markets. It's overly simplistic. I hear the same argument about gas prices. Some (most) markets are driven by the providers, not the consumers. A free market does not require a powerful consumer.

The alternative is to have news come from something other than a free market. That means that the news would be beholding to something other than the market.

What entity would you suggest?

How would you determine whether the alternative to a free market source is manipulated or not without having competing media sources?

Let's say (just for fun), that the current administration started-up a media source dependent on government for it's creation and continuation. Would that source be biased or unbiased? How would you tell?


B

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by Botnst

The alternative is to have news come from something other than a free market. That means that the news would be beholding to something other than the market.

What entity would you suggest?

How would you determine whether the alternative to a free market source is manipulated or not without having competing media sources?

Let's say (just for fun), that the current administration started-up a media source dependent on government for it's creation and continuation. Would that source be biased or unbiased? How would you tell?


B

You misunderstand. I'm not saying don't have private companies do news. I'm saying consumers are not the ones holding power just because it is a free market. There are plenty of free markets in which the consumer has little to no power.

Also, bias is not a concern to me, as I've mentioned previously. The news outlets can be manipulated to anyone's purpose. My biggest problem with our news outlets is lack of information, not slant in presentation of information.

[Botnst]

No media outlet will survive without consumers. The number of newspapers that have gone under in the past 20 - 30 years is huge. Many of them were bought-up by companies that offered more of what the consumers wanted. How do they attract consumers?

If the conglomerate fails to successfully deliver that which the consumer wants then the conglomerate will go under.

I read recently that less than half of the S&P 500 companies in the 1950's are still in operation today. Those on that list are the most stable companies in the USA, yet half of them are gone.

The news media is no different from any other company. If they don't deliver they will die.

No company in a free market can survive without consumers.

B

[t walgamuth]

Originally Posted by Botnst

The alternative is to have news come from something other than a free market. That means that the news would be beholding to something other than the market.

What entity would you suggest?

How would you determine whether the alternative to a free market source is manipulated or not without having competing media sources?

Let's say (just for fun), that the current administration started-up a media source dependent on government for it's creation and continuation. Would that source be biased or unbiased? How would you tell?


B

Welllllll......the current administration DID do that in Iraq.

Tom W

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

Welllllll......the current administration DID do that in Iraq.

Tom W

And so .... ?

I'm a simple guy and require simple explanations.

B

[tankdriver]

Originally Posted by Botnst

No media outlet will survive without consumers. The number of newspapers that have gone under in the past 20 - 30 years is huge. Many of them were bought-up by companies that offered more of what the consumers wanted. How do they attract consumers?

Newspapers are dying because people get their news from other sources, not from dissatisfaction with the paper's content/tone/whatever. That is an effect of technology. It is a problem with the product's form.

If the conglomerate fails to successfully deliver that which the consumer wants then the conglomerate will go under.

I read recently that less than half of the S&P 500 companies in the 1950's are still in operation today. Those on that list are the most stable companies in the USA, yet half of them are gone.

The news media is no different from any other company. If they don't deliver they will die.

No company in a free market can survive without consumers.

B

Yeah, obviously a business dies if no one buys their product. If no one wanted oil, there wouldn't be oil companies. That doesn't make the consumer a driving force in the industry. Through media (non-news outlet types of media), government influence, etc., the consumer is relegated to a minor position.
They have a free market economy in India. Things may have changed since I was last there, but the consumer has no power in India. An example of this is buying clothing. In India lots of people buy cloth and have clothes tailored because it's not that expensive. Saris are essentially big pieces of cloth. If a woman goes into a fabric shop in India and picks some cloth, especially if it's not in stock, she is virtually guaranteed not to get what she chose. And she can't do anything about it because every store does the same thing. They'll give her whatever they could get their hands on at the right price.

We essentially have the same system with gas. Americans are bound to their cars. And the same system with the newsmedia. The media has the added power of influencing and shaping how we think. They do subtle things like manipulate color saturation in graphics to create affect our perception. They do obvious things like all talk about the same thing, so we end up considering it important.

[t walgamuth]

Originally Posted by Botnst

And so .... ?

I'm a simple guy and require simple explanations.

B

And you won't be getting them from me anymore than I got one from you.

Tom W

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by t walgamuth

And you won't be getting them from me anymore than I got one from you.

Tom W

Oh. So you are saying that your statement had no point?

[Gurkha]

Media for most likes to paint the popular concept of truth or illusion in general. Actual news is quite morbid and can be mundane at times. Sometimes that very concept of sensationalism leads to so many misconceptions. Media is also an active tool for politicians to manipulate their agenda and lead the public like sheep. Has happened once too many often.

[Botnst]

Originally Posted by tankdriver

Newspapers are dying because people get their news from other sources, not from dissatisfaction with the paper's content/tone/whatever. That is an effect of technology. It is a problem with the product's form.


Yeah, obviously a business dies if no one buys their product. If no one wanted oil, there wouldn't be oil companies. That doesn't make the consumer a driving force in the industry. Through media (non-news outlet types of media), government influence, etc., the consumer is relegated to a minor position.
They have a free market economy in India. Things may have changed since I was last there, but the consumer has no power in India. An example of this is buying clothing. In India lots of people buy cloth and have clothes tailored because it's not that expensive. Saris are essentially big pieces of cloth. If a woman goes into a fabric shop in India and picks some cloth, especially if it's not in stock, she is virtually guaranteed not to get what she chose. And she can't do anything about it because every store does the same thing. They'll give her whatever they could get their hands on at the right price.

We essentially have the same system with gas. Americans are bound to their cars. And the same system with the newsmedia. The media has the added power of influencing and shaping how we think. They do subtle things like manipulate color saturation in graphics to create affect our perception. They do obvious things like all talk about the same thing, so we end up considering it important.

No doubt that things vary from country to country and time to time.

B