US media

[RandFan]

Probably exclude you from Press Conferences.

BTW, this is misleading. Helen Thomas is still giving the president hell as is David Gregory.

It's true that Presidents like Bill Clinton and George Bush have limited or excluded access to some reporters (and of course there was the male prostitute who got unwarranted access but that's another story) but by and large criticism from the press corps is the modus operandi.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Murdoch doesn't own the source of this story, which is the Washington Post:

http://www.mercurynews.com/news/ci_5941513

But Murdoch could own the source of this story; what's more it demonstrates which agencies are politically driven and which are not:



There are more "malamine is safe to eat" stories on pigs fed food contaminated with Chinese supplements containing the plastic melamine.

The Department of Agriculture is a politically driven bureacratic agency with a Bush appointee as Secretary in his cabinet. The FDA, which is consumer oriented, is not. So it looks like the FDA and Ag are butting heads now on whether farm animals fed contaminated feeds are safe to eat or not. Wonderful. What do we do now? Raise our own produce and feed it feed we also raise.

Thanks for the links. I didn't know it was that bad. Bummer.

 

[RandFan]

If the Media dictates the races - and the leading party can dictate the Media, how do you stop this symbiosis?

The leading party doesn't want stories of bombings out of Iraq on the news. The leading party didn't want the Democrats to win both houses of congress. The leading party doesn't want George Bush's poll numbers to be in the toilet.

The argument against your argument is reality.

 

[Oliver]

Not a mistake of memory? Not a typo?


But again you go back to the irrelevant discussion regarding definitions of lies and distortions.

I'll say it again: define those words however you like.

Now, with whatever those definitions are, please answer:
Would you have any problem with allowing me to decide who has lied and who has distorted?

It's not a question of decision. You know how your juridical system works: A panel could work in a similar way - and you cannot be convicted if no one accuses you.

So in a case of a panel, anyone could complain to the panel - maybe via petitions, for example.

ANYWAY:

I'm still learning, so don't bother me with things I don't know yet. It's not my intention to start a revolution, I only try to understand the Issue.

 

[DanishDynamite]

No media in the world is neutral, even if it tries to be. What can be said is that some media are more obviously biased than others.

 

[WildCat]

The Situation I see over there is that the Media has the Power to push or destroy potential, good candidates. And that's pretty bad from my definition of democracy.

Why is the UK state-broadcaster BBC able to make a critical coverage about the war - even if they're also in it?
Why is it and why does Americas Media fail to be neutral?

Still want to know how you can advocate both of these positions Oliver, they're diametrically opposed to each other.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

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

Return to investigative reporting, an educated media literate public, break up the monopolies into smaller companies, and not letting the legislation which would allow Internet providers the ability to control access to websites the user is seeking.

Net neutrality is another thread, so no hijacking please.

 

[Pardalis]

Still want to know how you can advocate both of these positions Oliver, they're diametrically opposed to each other.

I think that's Oliver's definition of 'neutrality'.

 

[Ziggurat]

Okay, so you say that if an constitutional right could be misused, let's say because there is an invention like the television or internet that didn't exist back then, but which could jeopardize the original intention of the constitution, how do you react?

Free speech has ALWAYS been something which could be abused. And it has always been something vital to protect as well. Nothing about television OR the internet changes that, and free speech sure as hell doesn't threaten the intentions of our constitution.

If the Media dictates the races

But they don't. If they did, Kerry would be president right now.

and the leading party can dictate the Media,

But it can't, as the regularly grim news stories regarding Iraq attest to.

how do you stop this symbiosis?

Well, if that were the case (and it isn't), the one thing you obviously DON'T do is give the give the government more power over the media.

Can't watch your link right now, I'm on a computer where the video plugin isn't working.

 

[DanishDynamite]

Regarding the US media in general, it does seem incredibly sensationalistic and sound-byte fixated. The only US TV news "show" I've seen with any depth at all is "60-minutes", which I think is wonderful, BTW.

 

[Oliver]

pbs.org? My god! An American media outlet! It must not be true then!

You know what, Pardalis. Your one-liners are a pain in the ass. I still hope for the day that you actually start to interact, share ideas, give us your opinion ... or something like this. But at least you could inform yourself a little bit about the Documentary before complaining about it and playing the dumb Twoofer.

 

[brodski]

Return to investigative reporting, an educated media literate public, break up the monopolies into smaller companies, and not letting the legislation which would allow Internet providers the ability to control access to websites the user is seeking.

Net neutrality is another thread, so no hijacking please.

I'm going to ignore the net neutrality point as you say that a whole other thread (Also, I don‘t want to display my ignorance on this matter ) .

I fail to see how investigative journalism would lead to less bias, deciding which stories to really dig into can be an example of bias in and of itself. More competition could possibly lead to more "neutrality" over all, however what is likely is that media companies will begin to compete on ideological stance. Much like in the UK you have the rightwing press and the left wing press, you have the pro Europe and the Anti Europe papers, pick your bias and you can find a paper that will report news to satisfy that bias. Whilst the news media taken as a whole may be more "neutral", that is only because the competition has forced different outlets to become more biased, but in different directions, possibly cancelling each other out.
However few people read more than one daily paper...

An educated media literate public is my ideal solution, but fostering eth myth of the ideal of "neutral" reporting works against this IMHO, let people realise that their new sources are biased in all kinds of different directions, and then teach them how to spot that bias.

 

[Ziggurat]

It leans Democratic?

Well, yes.
http://www.mediaresearch.org/biasbasics/biasbasics3.asp
Journalists have long been overwhelmingly democrats, and vote overwhelmingly for democratic candidates. Here's a nice quote on the issue from one of their own:

“Let’s talk a little media bias here. The media, I think, wants Kerry to win. And I think they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards – I’m talking about the establishment media, not Fox – but they’re going to portray Kerry and Edwards as being young and dynamic and optimistic and all. There’s going to be this glow about them that some, is going to be worth, collectively, the two of them, that’s going to be worth maybe 15 points.”
– Newsweek Assistant Managing Editor Evan Thomas on the July 10 Inside Washington.

I think he overestimated the effect of media bias, but it was quite clearly there.

In the lead up to the Iraq war, let's see some evidence?

In the leadup to the Iraq war, many democrats supported Bush. After all, regime change was a policy first signed into law by Clinton. It wasn't until the 2004 campaign that opposition to the Iraq war became almost universal among democrats, and the press too.

 

[Pardalis]

You know what, Pardalis. Your one-liners are a pain in the ass. I still hope for the day that you actually start to interact, share ideas, give us your opinion ...

I'm using one-liners now because I don't care anymore. I did all that, I interacted with you on previous threads, shared ideas and gave you my opinion... you just don't want to listen, all you do is keep moving the goal posts and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you to be a Bush supporter or being in denial.

That's the easy get away when someone doesn't want to face an opposing idea, and you're constantly using it. Face it, you already know what you want to hear.

 

[Oliver]

Still want to know how you can advocate both of these positions Oliver, they're diametrically opposed to each other.

Read again - plus consider the context. They're not opposed.

 

[RandFan]

Can't watch your link right now, I'm on a computer where the video plugin isn't working.

It's actually pretty good. I'm not sure what Oliver thinks it proves though. Perhaps he can give us some commentary.

ETA: I should note that I'm only 26 minutes into a 54 minute show.

 

[Oliver]

I'm using one-liners now because I don't care anymore. I did all that, I interacted with you on previous threads, shared ideas and gave you my opinion... you just don't want to listen, all you do is and keep moving the goal posts and accuse anyone who doesn't agree with you to be a Bush supporter or being in denial.

That's it! You're a denying Bush supporter.

Anyway: I try to find out. But you don't have an opinion about it - so I guess you never thought about it or you really don't care about the issue. So what is it?

 

[Oliver]

It's actually pretty good. I'm not sure what Oliver thinks it proves though. Perhaps he can give us some commentary.

ETA: I should note that I'm only 26 minutes into a 54 minute show.

The video shows several recordings from candidates that weren't aired on cable-TV but via satellite. So you can hear what they were talking while they thought the cameras weren't running.

And to comment on it, I have to watch it again - it's several months ago since I saw it.

Anyway: I can comment on "Outfoxed", but I guess this is an old one, isn't it?

Google Video This video is not hosted by the ISF, the ISF can not be held responsible for the suitability or legality of this material. By clicking the link below you agree to view content from an external website.

I AGREE

But I have to do so tomorrow.

Cheers,
Oliver

 

[RandFan]

The video shows several recordings from candidates that weren't aired on cable-TV but via satellite. So you can hear what they were talking while they thought the cameras weren't running.

Yes, I'm watching it now. I know what it is. That's not the question. Why did you post it? What do you think it proves?

 

[WildCat]

Read again - plus consider the context. They're not opposed.

The media cannot be both advocates and neutral. Perhaps you don't know what "neutral" means in English?