|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2007 : 06:49:30
|
Rather: Government influencing newsrooms
| Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news. |
I would be in a position to know.
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2007 : 08:39:16 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Rather: Government influencing newsrooms
| Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news. |
I would be in a position to know.
|
Yeah, I read that at Raw Story. But you should provide a link for those who haven't.
It's kinda/sorta old news, really. It is common knowledge that corporate news organizations are solidly in the corporate/Republican camp, as witness the treatment they gave to the last several Democrat presidential contenders. I think it'll soon come back to bite them.
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist! 
|
 |
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 08:46:13 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by filthy
Yeah, I read that at Raw Story. But you should provide a link for those who haven't.
It's kinda/sorta old news, really. It is common knowledge that corporate news organizations are solidly in the corporate/Republican camp, as witness the treatment they gave to the last several Democrat presidential contenders. I think it'll soon come back to bite them.
|
Opps! LINK!
|
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
Kil
Evil Skeptic
USA
13476 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2007 : 10:57:54 [Permalink]
|
At one time, the networks owned the networks. In those days the news was a matter of prestige rather than a source of revenue. News departments were largely left alone by the heads of the networks and mostly independent. They ran at a loss, but earned the networks the prestige that they sought, which in those days was reward enough.
As time went on, the networks were bought by large parent companies that saw two new ways to use the news. The first one was to force the news departments to not report on anything that might be damaging to the parent corporation, or “friends” of the parent corporation. The other was to transform the news departments into operations for bringing in revenue.
What has transpired from there is what we have now. Television news is largely geared to entertain and not rock the boat, with both eyes on ratings and the bottom line. What we see as worst case for that is Fox News, owned by the Murdock conglomerate. They absolutely pander to their audience with an agenda that is nothing short of propaganda presented as news in a format that is very entertaining, if you are inclined to buy what they are selling.
But again, they are just worst case. None of the networks have escaped. None are as independent as they once were. All of them must now pander to their target audience and not piss off the corporation that owns them. All of them are competing for share, which translates into dollars, and to hell with prestige.
Sure there are shows we like. I like Anderson Coopers 360 on CNN. But those shows are just bones they throw out to get old curmudgeons like me to watch at least a few of the commercial breaks and in the hope that I will hang around to watch the rest of their tripe.
The one exception to the above is The News Hour on PBS. But who watches that?
Ernie Kovaks once said "TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done." That is truer now then ever before…
I would like to say that written news has faired better. And I suppose to some extent it has. But not by much. And they are getting worse as time goes by. What are the investigative journalists investigating these days? Certainly they did not look very deeply into the claims of the current administrations reasons for attacking Iraq and other misdeeds. Where are the Carl Bernstein's and Bob Woodward's of today? And what paper has the balls that the Washington Post had to run with the story that they investigated which forced the other press organizations to follow?
And you know what Jerome? It wasn't the government who put the brakes on the kind of journalism we once took for granted. At one time, the news organizations were willing to say “fuck ‘em” if that was where the story went. And to some small extent, that kept the government honest. At least in those days, the president had to worry about being busted. No, it was the news originations themselves that did that out of fear of being wrong, out of fear of pissing off the boss, and out of fear of pissing off their readership.
If our first amendment rights are in danger of being lost, it will not be because of the government. It will be because the people we trust to give it to us straight have turned into a pack of lapdogs, and wimps afraid of their own shadow. If a free press does not exercise its freedom, which is still protected by the constitution, where should we to turn to for those who will?
A bit of a rant, that... |
Uncertainty may make you uncomfortable. Certainty makes you ridiculous.
Why not question something for a change?
Genetic Literacy Project |
|
|
|
filthy
SFN Die Hard
USA
14408 Posts |
 Posted - 09/23/2007 : 12:05:56 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
At one time, the networks owned the networks. In those days the news was a matter of prestige rather than a source of revenue. News departments were largely left alone by the heads of the networks and mostly independent. They ran at a loss, but earned the networks the prestige that they sought, which in those days was reward enough.
As time went on, the networks were bought by large parent companies that saw two new ways to use the news. The first one was to force the news departments to not report on anything that might be damaging to the parent corporation, or “friends” of the parent corporation. The other was to transform the news departments into operations for bringing in revenue.
What has transpired from there is what we have now. Television news is largely geared to entertain and not rock the boat, with both eyes on ratings and the bottom line. What we see as worst case for that is Fox News, owned by the Murdock conglomerate. They absolutely pander to their audience with an agenda that is nothing short of propaganda presented as news in a format that is very entertaining, if you are inclined to buy what they are selling.
But again, they are just worst case. None of the networks have escaped. None are as independent as they once were. All of them must now pander to their target audience and not piss off the corporation that owns them. All of them are competing for share, which translates into dollars, and to hell with prestige.
Sure there are shows we like. I like Anderson Coopers 360 on CNN. But those shows are just bones they throw out to get old curmudgeons like me to watch at least a few of the commercial breaks and in the hope that I will hang around to watch the rest of their tripe.
The one exception to the above is The News Hour on PBS. But who watches that?
Ernie Kovaks once said "TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done." That is truer now then ever before…
I would like to say that written news has faired better. And I suppose to some extent it has. But not by much. And they are getting worse as time goes by. What are the investigative journalists investigating these days? Certainly they did not look very deeply into the claims of the current administrations reasons for attacking Iraq and other misdeeds. Where are the Carl Bernstein's and Bob Woodward's of today? And what paper has the balls that the Washington Post had to run with the story that they investigated which forced the other press organizations to follow?
And you know what Jerome? It wasn't the government who put the brakes on the kind of journalism we once took for granted. At one time, the news organizations were willing to say “fuck ‘em” if that was where the story went. And to some small extent, that kept the government honest. At least in those days, the president had to worry about being busted. No, it was the news originations themselves that did that out of fear of being wrong, out of fear of pissing off the boss, and out of fear of pissing off their readership.
If our first amendment rights are in danger of being lost, it will not be because of the government. It will be because the people we trust to give it to us straight have turned into a pack of lapdogs, and wimps afraid of their own shadow. If a free press does not exercise its freedom, which is still protected by the constitution, where should we to turn to for those who will?
A bit of a rant, that...
|
Hear hear!
|
"What luck for rulers that men do not think." -- Adolf Hitler (1889 - 1945)
"If only we could impeach on the basis of criminal stupidity, 90% of the Rethuglicans and half of the Democrats would be thrown out of office." ~~ P.Z. Myres
"The default position of human nature is to punch the other guy in the face and take his stuff." ~~ Dude
Brother Boot Knife of Warm Humanitarianism,
and Crypto-Communist!
|
|
|
|
JEROME DA GNOME
BANNED
2418 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 18:00:58 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by Kil
At one time, the networks owned the networks. In those days the news was a matter of prestige rather than a source of revenue. News departments were largely left alone by the heads of the networks and mostly independent. They ran at a loss, but earned the networks the prestige that they sought, which in those days was reward enough.
As time went on, the networks were bought by large parent companies that saw two new ways to use the news. The first one was to force the news departments to not report on anything that might be damaging to the parent corporation, or “friends” of the parent corporation. The other was to transform the news departments into operations for bringing in revenue.
What has transpired from there is what we have now. Television news is largely geared to entertain and not rock the boat, with both eyes on ratings and the bottom line. What we see as worst case for that is Fox News, owned by the Murdock conglomerate. They absolutely pander to their audience with an agenda that is nothing short of propaganda presented as news in a format that is very entertaining, if you are inclined to buy what they are selling.
But again, they are just worst case. None of the networks have escaped. None are as independent as they once were. All of them must now pander to their target audience and not piss off the corporation that owns them. All of them are competing for share, which translates into dollars, and to hell with prestige.
Sure there are shows we like. I like Anderson Coopers 360 on CNN. But those shows are just bones they throw out to get old curmudgeons like me to watch at least a few of the commercial breaks and in the hope that I will hang around to watch the rest of their tripe.
The one exception to the above is The News Hour on PBS. But who watches that?
Ernie Kovaks once said "TV is called a medium because it is neither rare nor well done." That is truer now then ever before…
I would like to say that written news has faired better. And I suppose to some extent it has. But not by much. And they are getting worse as time goes by. What are the investigative journalists investigating these days? Certainly they did not look very deeply into the claims of the current administrations reasons for attacking Iraq and other misdeeds. Where are the Carl Bernstein's and Bob Woodward's of today? And what paper has the balls that the Washington Post had to run with the story that they investigated which forced the other press organizations to follow?
And you know what Jerome? It wasn't the government who put the brakes on the kind of journalism we once took for granted. At one time, the news organizations were willing to say “fuck ‘em” if that was where the story went. And to some small extent, that kept the government honest. At least in those days, the president had to worry about being busted. No, it was the news originations themselves that did that out of fear of being wrong, out of fear of pissing off the boss, and out of fear of pissing off their readership.
If our first amendment rights are in danger of being lost, it will not be because of the government. It will be because the people we trust to give it to us straight have turned into a pack of lapdogs, and wimps afraid of their own shadow. If a free press does not exercise its freedom, which is still protected by the constitution, where should we to turn to for those who will?
A bit of a rant, that...
|
If I may.
The political thoughts of news reporting was displayed and apparent in America prior to your remembrance. It is a new idea that the news is reporting facts from a neutral perspective. This idea; if we have any understand |
What a man believes upon grossly insufficient evidence is an index into his desires -- desires of which he himself is often unconscious. If a man is offered a fact which goes against his instincts, he will scrutinize it closely, and unless the evidence is overwhelming, he will refuse to believe it. If, on the other hand, he is offered something which affords a reason for acting in accordance to his instincts, he will accept it even on the slightest evidence. The origin of myths is explained in this way. - Bertrand Russell |
|
|
|
JohnOAS
SFN Regular
Australia
800 Posts |
Posted - 09/23/2007 : 21:01:21 [Permalink]
|
Originally posted by JEROME DA GNOME
Rather: Government influencing newsrooms
| Somebody, sometime has got to take a stand and say democracy cannot survive, much less thrive with the level of big corporate and big government interference and intimidation in news. |
I would be in a position to know.
|
What does this mean? I'm referring to your text, not the quote.
Your grammar is ambigous, at least to me.
You would be? ( if... )
You are?
And to know what, specifically? |
John's just this guy, you know. |
|
|
|
 |
|
|
|
Update: Ministry of Infromation
