The State of media, in the US and Internationally

Gerbick and I had a brief twitter discussion about the media and sensationalism, and we happen to differ on a few points. I thought some people here might find the topic interesting.

It started with the comment of the media's general contentedness with Tipper and Al Gore's separation being "indicative of how sick the media has become." Now I can't disagree with that, but I think it's just a reflection of society's particular obsession at the moment. What has ratings increasingly in the last few years? Celebrity divorce. And it's just one more show of how politics as become increasingly more about celebrity than politics in the last 20 years (but that's a whole different issue.)

It comes down to several factors, firstly the specialization of news thanks to technology and the ever increasing volume of choices we have. News outlets, driven by ratings as an incentive are forced to pander to an audience, and that includes reflecting their audience's opinion. As the pool of news outlets grow and the fight for viewer-ship increases, the pandering gets harder. This has started somewhat of a viscous cycle.

But my point is it's the desire to be pandered to, the lack of demand for unbiased, non-sensational news by the audience that dropped the ratings of pure-fact news stations and gave rise to the network monsters that pander to their audience today, including the options of the internet and blogs. People can find their opinion regurgitated to them anywhere, and that's what they'll look for (as far as generalizations go, of course.)

What are your thoughts on the progression of American news towards sensationalism (on which I think we agree) and how it compares/contrasts with international news?

I wholly disagree.

The state of affairs now in media is a cross between having to find a way to keep the attention of people that are used to microwaved food and used to reading only headlines. Reading comprehension is at an all time low. But who do you blame? The people or the media?

I personally blame the media. If they were to have remained somewhat unbiased, delivered the news in a consistent manner that didn't have to rely on "AL GORE & TIPPER GORE GETTING A DIVORCE, COULD IT BE THE DEATH OF THE LIBERAL COUPLE OF THE DECADE!?" and the fact that now bloggers are considered "journalist" that know only how to deliver a badly written paragraph of run-on sentences and comma splices, like this one... the media is to blame.

They've dumbed down their message (that's bad), they've isolated the real facts from the opinions (that's bad), they've wrapped it up in a manner that would make Jerry Springer happy (that's bad) and they tend to use hyperbole, sensationalistic verbiage and above all... never tell the entire story (which is the worst).

I blame the media, then I turn around and I blame the people that divide up, watch that crap like it's informative, discuss it like it's the truth - when it's only a bunch of half-truths from liars of "journalists" on both sides of the fence that honestly couldn't tell you the full truth because all they see is a headline and a paycheck.

International news, I've lived overseas. It's more of the same despite the so-called snobbery of not being like the American media circuit. For example, in the UK... you have the BBC, then you have "The Sun". The Sun shouldn't be popular, but somehow it is. People love to hear about stupid stuff all of a sudden.

The media is feeding the 1 minute or less type of short attention span folks with what they want to hear... crap. And I fully blame them for delivering it and us for devouring it.

It's an idiotic circle like a retarded ouroboros that begats nothing more stupidity while eating its own tail.

I'm not sure we disagree on anything but the origin of the issue. The media certainly has some fault in lowering their standards of journalism to fit their audience, however if there was more of a demand for better news sources, wouldn't that niche be filled by the demand? So certainly no one is innocent, I just think it was easier to deliver simple news when there was only 8 channels. You didn't have to worry about competition.

How do you compete with the absolute truth?

Is this a correct summary of positions?

A. Media sensationalism is caused by a lack of public demand for unbiased news.

B. Media sensationalism is caused by media outlets choosing sensationalism for their own reasons.

---

From what I've seen, I don't see a marked difference between the general editorial qualities of American and international media. We do have C-SPAN which is about as straight-from-the-horses-mouth as possible.

I would have to agree on pretty much everything that's been stated above except for the C-Span remark about being straight from the horse's mouth.
I fully understand what FL means by the comment, as in there is no third party to spin what you are witnessing, however, what you witness on C-Span is the most biased sack of outright lies and spin from all parties involved that it is the equivalent of watching the Olympics for professional politicians.
I put more trust in what I see on FAUX News than what I see on C-Spin.
At least FOX sprinkles a few nuggets of truth into their lies.

Real journalism died a slow and painful death a long time ago while the world stood by in apathy.

You guys have discovered the new chicken & egg mystery. I say the bad news came first. They served up every type of news and like any business with a successful product, cranked production on what worked.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by gerbick

How do you compete with the absolute truth?

---

Say something people would rather hear.

You guys should check out "True Enough", by Manjoo. An interesting take on things and probably a pretty big influence on why I feel the way I do. Needs a grain of salt at times and the anecdotes sometimes run away from him, but it's an interesting read none-the-less.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

I fully understand what FL means by the comment, as in there is no third party to spin what you are witnessing, however, what you witness on C-Span is the most biased sack of outright lies and spin from all parties involved that it is the equivalent of watching the Olympics for professional politicians.

---

There definitely is spin abound directly from politicians. But, I think it's quite a bit easier to tell who knows what they're talking about and who is full of it when it's unfiltered. A lot of media outlets make spinsters seem more credible by showing edited clips of what they say without how more knowledgeable folks respond to them.

A very common pattern I see are popular political figures being shown in the news chastising some company, group or panel. But, the response isn't shown. As if the questioning itself is the biggest part of the news rather than the answers from the people being called for questioning.

[RIP Ted Kennedy was the master of this. If you watched his clips on ABC, you would think that he was at the forefront of investigating every issue. But, if you watched him in the context of the actual events as aired on C-SPAN, he looked like a raving lunatic. Instead of using his minutes to further the over-sight work it was meant for, he would use the time to appeal to the cameras. That often meant saying things that were completely out of the context of the moment, had just been addressed, had just been asked in the same way, etc. Typically, nobody responded to him. Yet, the next day in the news cycle, his clip would be the only one shown as if he was the protagonist of the day.]

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by ViRGo_RK

Say something people would rather hear.

You guys should check out "True Enough", by Manjoo. An interesting take on things and probably a pretty big influence on why I feel the way I do. Needs a grain of salt at times and the anecdotes sometimes run away from him, but it's an interesting read none-the-less.

---

And I always turn to the 1976 movie "Network" that despite being a satire, it was closer to the truth than anything else. Especially now.

It is all about ratings on the shows. And the politicians... they all want to be closer to the money, where they can skim off the top and enforce the laws that allow white-collar crime to rip off billions of dollars yet stay at home with an anklet.

Public hang a few laundering bankers, drag a crooked politician behind a few trucks, electrocute the embezzlers on a golden-gilded chair, even out the laws in terms of punishment and the ponzi schemers, horrible bankers and crooked politicians might all second-think that money grab of a decision they thought up while running for some office where they stopped listening to the people until it's election year.

Simply put, entertain the brutes long enough with entertainment they enjoy and they won't notice that they're being fleeced. I don't even care about spin any longer. Just sick of thinly veiled attempts to be truthful when honesty has long left their soulless vessels ages ago.

To each story, there's three sides to it. What you will find out, what they don't want you to know and the truth. Shades of grey exist between those separations, in my book.

But bad media is just hitting its stride now, imho. Soon all of the news will look like Jerry Springer.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

There definitely is spin abound directly from politicians. But, I think it's quite a bit easier to tell who knows what they're talking about and who is full of it when it's unfiltered.

---

Without an independent third party to factcheck and verify, anyone watching is just going to believe the guy that's spouting the spin they want to hear.
Everyone's own bias prevents them from being an effective filter especially when their own factchecking is done in an echo chamber of their own bias.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jAQUAN

You guys have discovered the new chicken & egg mystery. I say the bad news came first. They served up every type of news and like any business with a successful product, cranked production on what worked.

---

Aye, real "News" was infected with a terminal illness the day that it was decided it must be profitable.
Commercial revenue and the need for ratings was what killed true journalism.

heres my take:

back in the nineties a little TV station called MTV started to deviate from their music based television shows to a more reality based setup. This brought the world REALWORLD, and eventually RoadRules, and soon MTV no longer had music videos, it was Reality show after reality show, after reality show. Little teen girls started to eat it all up, causing higher ratings which in turn caused other networks to take notice.

VH1 was still playing music, but slowly and surely it now no longer has music videos, now its rock of love, love bus, love of new york, i love money, money loves things that loves things or what the **** ever. a bunch of "reality" dating shows.

Bigger networks see this and they start to formulate a plan, "we want those young whippersnappers" they would say to themselves someone figure out what they are into. this results in dumb **** shows like the bachelor, and the bachelorette, and survivor. more "reality" based shows where they can see real people, and decide if they hate them.

Then we have ****ing deushnozzles like Perez hilton, a person thats famous, for drawing pictures of penises on other famous peoples pictures.

"HAHAHA OMG he DREW A Penis on jennifer aniston!!! this guy is the best person ever!"

no hes not, hes a dumb *****.

Basically lots of people want to live their miserable stupid lives through the lives of others as they do awesome things like have a 5 way in a hot tub, or jet set around the world on some amazing race(see what i did there?).

the tipper/gore thing doesnt shock me as being a vice president, and almost president he is a public figure.

im just rambling now, but i think this wouldnt have been news before if we werent all so ****ing connected. **** now i can send someone a video of a one legged man bowling a strike to 20 random people, and id wager 15 of them would have already seen it.

I am citing my former English teacher: Good media should not report what people want to read/see but what people ought to read/see. I think in the US PBS news hour gets close to that with kind of deeper analysis and discussion of things. News is not supposed to be entertainment but getting informed about what is going on and forming some kind of opinion. A typical example of how news is deteriorated is ABC's 11.30 pm Nightline, which had quality when Ted Koppel did it and is now simply superficial garbage.

Something in this thread could kill your entire family. Send me $5 to find out.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by cancerinform

I am citing my former English teacher: Good media should not report what people want to read/see but what people ought to read/see. I think in the US PBS news hour gets close to that with kind of deeper analysis and discussion of things. News is not supposed to be entertainment but getting informed about what is going on and forming some kind of opinion. A typical example of how news is deteriorated is ABC's 11.30 pm Nightline, which had quality when Ted Koppel did it and is now simply superficial garbage.

---

Lippman said it in 1922. “public opinions must be organized for the press if they are to be sound, not by the press as is the case today”.

Starting to shift a little bit in opinion personally, I can sort of see where your coming from Gerbick.

How objective can one news writer, one editor or one reader be?

I dare any of you to watch this and keep a straight face
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=NE-0TUt61ws

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Loyal Rogue

Without an independent third party to factcheck and verify, anyone watching is just going to believe the guy that's spouting the spin they want to hear.
Everyone's own bias prevents them from being an effective filter especially when their own factchecking is done in an echo chamber of their own bias.

---

I can see that for some people. However, if someones position is supported by fact, it's not a bad thing that they are biased toward that substantiated position.

I'm just saying that it's easier to tell who is prepared with substantiation and sound logic when you are able to see the entire dialogue that occurred rather than the clips the mainstream media tends to show. Also, there are still ways to spin a situation. But, it helps that lying is a punishable offence when giving testimony.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by FlashLackey

I can see that for some people. However, if someones position is supported by fact, it's not a bad thing that they are biased toward that substantiated position.

---

It is if you are reporting and not editorializing. Agree, disagree with the news you're reporting... I don't care nor do I want to know what you think. Just read the pretty blue text in front of you and stfu. If you're Bill Oreilly, it's a different story, I know what I'm getting and can choose to avoid you.

The problem is some people don't understand that and accept it wholesale.

There are more problesm including deceit by omission.

I think that sort of goes hand in hand, no? I know I'm not getting the full story usually, which is why I try and find multiple sources and corroborate.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by jAQUAN

It is if you are reporting and not editorializing. Agree, disagree with the news you're reporting... I don't care nor do I want to know what you think. Just read the pretty blue text in front of you and stfu. If you're Bill Oreilly, it's a different story, I know what I'm getting and can choose to avoid you.

---

I hear you. I was referring to viewers rather than media/reporters.

I will say though that I think it's a mistake to think that any report is without perspective simply because the person doesn't overtly express an opinion or delivers the information in a dry way. Those who think they are getting objective information based on the "seriousness" of the delivery are probably more duped than anyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Frets

There are more problesm including deceit by omission.

---

Exactly.