login
How much trust do you have in media? (Page 3)
-
No new posts
|
 2012-07-25 11:09 AM in reply to: #4329816 |
Champion  6056    Menomonee Falls, WI |  Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media?mr2tony - 2012-07-25 10:52 AM The thing people need to think about is the source. If it's a reputable news company that gets it right all the time then you can trust them. On the head of the nearest pin, please list these news organizations. |
| 2012-07-25 11:28 AM in reply to: #4329859 |
Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 11:06 AM jgaither - 2012-07-25 10:50 AM How can people "consume" stories they don't even know exist? The people don't determine the news. They rabidly devour the sensationalized, dramatized versions of cherry-picked stories the mainstream media deem important or interesting, according to the storylines they wish to see play out. It's reality TV on the grandest scale, wrapped in the pretense of "serious, objective reporting". It's Froot Loops marketed as Cheerios. It would be interesting, however, if a truly objective (or one that at least attempted to be) investigative news network could make it in the marketplace. One that devoted hours to complex topics like ACA, the economy and constitutional issues. It seems like there would be at least a critical mass of news junkies out there to sustain it, and its success might have a real impact on other news outlets. These days there's a cable network devoted to everything from independent films to rerun reality tv to classic sports... why not one for unsensationalized, in-depth American-based journalism? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 9:28 AMThe media decide what is NEWS and what isn't. They set the topics to be discussed and debated-- and which ones won't be. That is a TREMENDOUS power. Scoob, I thought you were a capitalist? You know the news prints/shows what stories are consumed the most. WE, the people, set the news. If WE consumed more of what you talk about and less of the other, then "main stream" media would cover it. I agree about the budget stuff, I really want to know why they haven't. But frankly I don't care about Trayvon so I don't watch it. Seems to me you vote with your eyes as far as media is concerned. Just like in business you vote with your wallet. What business model do you choose to support. Unfortunately the vast majority of ding-a-lings apparently care about Trayvon it would seem. I'm mostly ribbing you I view, media as consumable. I pay for parts of my news if not all in one way or another. So I make a conscious effort to support those outlets that I find most responsible by purchasing their product. I read most of mine, so that may be why I lean toward it being a consumable. That's the only way I feel I can vote against the sensationalism. I just don't know how much I agree with the idea that the news media sets the news. If no one watches it, they won't show it. Aren't they slaves to ratings? The argument isn't necessarily is the tail wagging the dog or vice versa, but which is the dog and which is the tail. |
, but I couldn't agree more with you on the types of news organizations I'd like to see.| 2012-07-25 11:40 AM in reply to: #4329859 |
Master 1895  | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 12:06 PM jgaither - 2012-07-25 10:50 AM How can people "consume" stories they don't even know exist? The people don't determine the news. They rabidly devour the sensationalized, dramatized versions of cherry-picked stories the mainstream media deem important or interesting, according to the storylines they wish to see play out. It's reality TV on the grandest scale, wrapped in the pretense of "serious, objective reporting". It's Froot Loops marketed as Cheerios. It would be interesting, however, if a truly objective (or one that at least attempted to be) investigative news network could make it in the marketplace. One that devoted hours to complex topics like ACA, the economy and constitutional issues. It seems like there would be at least a critical mass of news junkies out there to sustain it, and its success might have a real impact on other news outlets. These days there's a cable network devoted to everything from independent films to rerun reality tv to classic sports... why not one for unsensationalized, in-depth American-based journalism? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 9:28 AMThe media decide what is NEWS and what isn't. They set the topics to be discussed and debated-- and which ones won't be. That is a TREMENDOUS power. Scoob, I thought you were a capitalist? You know the news prints/shows what stories are consumed the most. WE, the people, set the news. If WE consumed more of what you talk about and less of the other, then "main stream" media would cover it. I agree about the budget stuff, I really want to know why they haven't. But frankly I don't care about Trayvon so I don't watch it. Seems to me you vote with your eyes as far as media is concerned. Just like in business you vote with your wallet. What business model do you choose to support. Unfortunately the vast majority of ding-a-lings apparently care about Trayvon it would seem. Check this out. I heard about them when one of our local TV investigative reporters made the move from local news to their organization.
|
| 2012-07-25 11:42 AM in reply to: #4329900 |
Champion 6056 Menomonee Falls, WI | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? jgaither - 2012-07-25 11:28 AM scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 11:06 AM jgaither - 2012-07-25 10:50 AM How can people "consume" stories they don't even know exist? The people don't determine the news. They rabidly devour the sensationalized, dramatized versions of cherry-picked stories the mainstream media deem important or interesting, according to the storylines they wish to see play out. It's reality TV on the grandest scale, wrapped in the pretense of "serious, objective reporting". It's Froot Loops marketed as Cheerios. It would be interesting, however, if a truly objective (or one that at least attempted to be) investigative news network could make it in the marketplace. One that devoted hours to complex topics like ACA, the economy and constitutional issues. It seems like there would be at least a critical mass of news junkies out there to sustain it, and its success might have a real impact on other news outlets. These days there's a cable network devoted to everything from independent films to rerun reality tv to classic sports... why not one for unsensationalized, in-depth American-based journalism? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 9:28 AMThe media decide what is NEWS and what isn't. They set the topics to be discussed and debated-- and which ones won't be. That is a TREMENDOUS power. Scoob, I thought you were a capitalist? You know the news prints/shows what stories are consumed the most. WE, the people, set the news. If WE consumed more of what you talk about and less of the other, then "main stream" media would cover it. I agree about the budget stuff, I really want to know why they haven't. But frankly I don't care about Trayvon so I don't watch it. Seems to me you vote with your eyes as far as media is concerned. Just like in business you vote with your wallet. What business model do you choose to support. Unfortunately the vast majority of ding-a-lings apparently care about Trayvon it would seem. I'm mostly ribbing you I view, media as consumable. I pay for parts of my news if not all in one way or another. So I make a conscious effort to support those outlets that I find most responsible by purchasing their product. I read most of mine, so that may be why I lean toward it being a consumable. That's the only way I feel I can vote against the sensationalism. I just don't know how much I agree with the idea that the news media sets the news. If no one watches it, they won't show it. Aren't they slaves to ratings? The argument isn't necessarily is the tail wagging the dog or vice versa, but which is the dog and which is the tail. To a certain extent, yes, media is driven by ratings. They have to stay in business. But it's not the only factor. The ideology of the news directors and producers also comes into play. If it didn't, why wouldn't all networks offer news with a slight right wing bias and blatant hard right wing commentary? I mean, Fox dominates the ratings, doesn't it? If they were truly slaves to ratings, why aren't there other networks trying to out-Fox Fox (sorry)? |
| 2012-07-25 12:07 PM in reply to: #4329866 |
Champion 34263 Chicago | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 11:09 AM mr2tony - 2012-07-25 10:52 AM The thing people need to think about is the source. If it's a reputable news company that gets it right all the time then you can trust them. On the head of the nearest pin, please list these news organizations. Too much space. I'll go with Bloomberg News, but I'm biased I guess. Reuters is pretty good because it's a `just-the-facts' organization. Politico is another I like. |
| 2012-07-25 12:20 PM in reply to: #4329942 |
| Master 2083 Houston, TX | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 11:42 AM jgaither - 2012-07-25 11:28 AM To a certain extent, yes, media is driven by ratings. They have to stay in business. But it's not the only factor. The ideology of the news directors and producers also comes into play. If it didn't, why wouldn't all networks offer news with a slight right wing bias and blatant hard right wing commentary? I mean, Fox dominates the ratings, doesn't it? If they were truly slaves to ratings, why aren't there other networks trying to out-Fox Fox (sorry)? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 11:06 AM jgaither - 2012-07-25 10:50 AM How can people "consume" stories they don't even know exist? The people don't determine the news. They rabidly devour the sensationalized, dramatized versions of cherry-picked stories the mainstream media deem important or interesting, according to the storylines they wish to see play out. It's reality TV on the grandest scale, wrapped in the pretense of "serious, objective reporting". It's Froot Loops marketed as Cheerios. It would be interesting, however, if a truly objective (or one that at least attempted to be) investigative news network could make it in the marketplace. One that devoted hours to complex topics like ACA, the economy and constitutional issues. It seems like there would be at least a critical mass of news junkies out there to sustain it, and its success might have a real impact on other news outlets. These days there's a cable network devoted to everything from independent films to rerun reality tv to classic sports... why not one for unsensationalized, in-depth American-based journalism? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 9:28 AMThe media decide what is NEWS and what isn't. They set the topics to be discussed and debated-- and which ones won't be. That is a TREMENDOUS power. Scoob, I thought you were a capitalist? You know the news prints/shows what stories are consumed the most. WE, the people, set the news. If WE consumed more of what you talk about and less of the other, then "main stream" media would cover it. I agree about the budget stuff, I really want to know why they haven't. But frankly I don't care about Trayvon so I don't watch it. Seems to me you vote with your eyes as far as media is concerned. Just like in business you vote with your wallet. What business model do you choose to support. Unfortunately the vast majority of ding-a-lings apparently care about Trayvon it would seem. I'm mostly ribbing you I view, media as consumable. I pay for parts of my news if not all in one way or another. So I make a conscious effort to support those outlets that I find most responsible by purchasing their product. I read most of mine, so that may be why I lean toward it being a consumable. That's the only way I feel I can vote against the sensationalism. I just don't know how much I agree with the idea that the news media sets the news. If no one watches it, they won't show it. Aren't they slaves to ratings? The argument isn't necessarily is the tail wagging the dog or vice versa, but which is the dog and which is the tail. Because there is an audience for the middle and left also. Just spit balling, but my guess is that they can get better ratings by NOT trying to out-Fox Fox. I would think that were CNN to switch over to a Fox model, they would simply lose viewership to the other organizations AND lose righty's to Fox. No hard core stats to back up my expectations, but just what I would expect human behavior to be. Why would I as a moderate want to watch Fox were CNN to switch to their model, or CNN for that matter? Similarly the proliferation of every possible known channel to man. Why someone would watch underwater basket weaving is beyond me, but there is an audience for it and they watch. They also are probably not trying to be #1 in the ratings. I suppose we agree there's more to it, really. Sounds like a combo deal to me. They set some and we decide if we like it or not. Edited by jgaither 2012-07-25 12:22 PM |
| 2012-07-25 5:06 PM in reply to: #4329859 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 10:06 AM jgaither - 2012-07-25 10:50 AM How can people "consume" stories they don't even know exist? The people don't determine the news. They rabidly devour the sensationalized, dramatized versions of cherry-picked stories the mainstream media deem important or interesting, according to the storylines they wish to see play out. It's reality TV on the grandest scale, wrapped in the pretense of "serious, objective reporting". It's Froot Loops marketed as Cheerios. It would be interesting, however, if a truly objective (or one that at least attempted to be) investigative news network could make it in the marketplace. One that devoted hours to complex topics like ACA, the economy and constitutional issues. It seems like there would be at least a critical mass of news junkies out there to sustain it, and its success might have a real impact on other news outlets. These days there's a cable network devoted to everything from independent films to rerun reality tv to classic sports... why not one for unsensationalized, in-depth American-based journalism? scoobysdad - 2012-07-25 9:28 AMThe media decide what is NEWS and what isn't. They set the topics to be discussed and debated-- and which ones won't be. That is a TREMENDOUS power. Scoob, I thought you were a capitalist? You know the news prints/shows what stories are consumed the most. WE, the people, set the news. If WE consumed more of what you talk about and less of the other, then "main stream" media would cover it. I agree about the budget stuff, I really want to know why they haven't. But frankly I don't care about Trayvon so I don't watch it. Seems to me you vote with your eyes as far as media is concerned. Just like in business you vote with your wallet. What business model do you choose to support. Unfortunately the vast majority of ding-a-lings apparently care about Trayvon it would seem. I would watch. With Fox I at least know it's biased. And that is not too bad if you know it before hand and just want to hear one side of the subject.... but then listening to all the others... nope. Just as biased, and I happen to not agree. I truly would love "just the facts".... heck, I would love to just watch an entire network of news shows devoted to pointing out how wrong all the other news shows were. I would watch that. |
| 2012-07-25 5:16 PM in reply to: #4328935 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? When I say "media" I mean anything...anywhere you get information from. But also, real information. Gossip is just that... "info" on celebrities or sensational peoples... who cares. Books, authors, news shows, documentaries, magazines, web sites... what ever. Gearboy made an interesting observation.. who cares... well then can you say you don't listen to anything that does not pertain to your immediate life? You are not interested in any subject, what is going on in the world? Technically, the Iraq/Afghanistan wars had absolutely no immediate bearing on my life. I still paid taxes, I still traveled, I did not have to chip in anything to the effort, or receive rations. I had absolutely no impact on it's outcome.. I'm not sure if you could say the same, but ya, we don't need to know anything about it really by your standards. I'm sort of curious how much we can actually filter out? I don't have any answers. But even if we do not care a lot, or put much stock in things.. do we really filter out as much as we think. That once you hear it it is filed away and changes your opinion or thoughts on something later? |
| 2012-07-26 11:38 AM in reply to: #4328935 |
Pro 6838 Tejas | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? Nothing wrong with the media at all. They are perfect and always research everything they write before releasing it to the world. (yahoo_fail.JPG) Attachments ---------------- yahoo_fail.JPG (70KB - 11 downloads) |
| 2012-07-26 11:51 AM in reply to: #4328935 |
Elite 6387 | Subject: RE: How much trust do you have in media? ^^^ Wow. |
|
|
|
|
View profile
Add to friends
Go to training log
Go to race log
Send a message
View album
CONNECT WITH FACEBOOK