Corporate controlled news, how extensive is it?

[RandFan]

The Daily Show is satire.

{sigh} Yes, the Daily Show is satire. We all get that. However John does have on real people and he does ask them real and serious questions. Yes, he does challenge those who lean his way from time to time but he takes on a very different demeanor when interviewing those from the right. Yes, I think it disingenuous. He likes to claim fake news all the time and he likes to play the serious anchor when it suits him.

 

[Psi Baba]

Just as it was often pointed out that John Edward's Crossing Over was on the SCI-FI CHANNEL, let's not forget that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are on COMEDY CENTRAL. I half expect to see someone criticizing Rowan and Martin for having been unfair toward the Nixon administration. Sheesh!

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

Thanks for the backup, PB.

Additional note: I thought Stewart was trying to ask critical questions of Kerry but it was a bit awkward. Stewart is very diplomatic with people. It's important to consider when a discussion is about other's view of other's actions and when one is trying to ask critical questions of the person who is actually responsible. I have seen an occasional Republican guest on the show and Stewart is diplomatic with them as well. Even in the clip with Tucker Carlson you can see Stewart not wanting to be frank at the expense of diplomacy.

So getting to the heart of the matter with a writer or columnist might look more like hardball while confronting the person directly might look more like softball. And Stewart has more liberal guests on while on the right, the guests are more likely to be a third party.

 

[RandFan]

Just as it was often pointed out that John Edward's Crossing Over was on the SCI-FI CHANNEL, let's not forget that The Daily Show and The Colbert Report are on COMEDY CENTRAL. I half expect to see someone criticizing Rowan and Martin for having been unfair toward the Nixon administration. Sheesh!

ONE MORE TIME, I GET THIS. {sheesh} How many times must someone acknowledge something before it is understood? Yes, I get it.

What I find disingenuous is for Stewart to get self righteous about spin when he engages in serious interviews as he sees fit. Tucker and BTW, Begala (how his name gets left out of this is beyond me) are not journalists. They are not reporters. So Stewart goes into his rant claiming that Tucker and Begala are hurting America. Why? Because they are CNN? Give me a break. And Stewart actually believes that he has no influence? Again, give me a break.

Stewart was disingenuous. I don't care that it is comedy. I don't care that Laugh In mocked Nixon. I don't care that he calls it the fake news.

 

[RandFan]

Thanks for the backup, PB.

Additional note: I thought Stewart was trying to ask critical questions of Kerry but it was a bit awkward. Stewart is very diplomatic with people. It's important to consider when a discussion is about other's view of other's actions and when one is trying to ask critical questions of the person who is actually responsible. I have seen an occasional Republican guest on the show and Stewart is diplomatic with them as well. Even in the clip with Tucker Carlson you can see Stewart not wanting to be frank at the expense of diplomacy.

So getting to the heart of the matter with a writer or columnist might look more like hardball while confronting the person directly might look more like softball. And Stewart has more liberal guests on while on the right, the guests are more likely to be a third party.

The world is really pretty and neat when we view it in the right light. Nice Job. It doesn't go to skepticism and critical thinking but it is a good way for those who don't want to damage their world views to look at it. Thanks.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

The world is really pretty and neat when we view it in the right light. Nice Job. It doesn't go to skepticism and critical thinking but it is a good way for those who don't want to damage their world views to look at it. Thanks.

If you are saying you think I'm distorting the facts this could go towards your view as well you know. Perhaps the real version is in the middle somewhere?

 

[gumboot]

I can't believe there is a thread somehow revealing the shocking truth that the media is biased, to the point of willingly lying, faking stories, and rewriting events to fit whatever they want to say.

Hello?

This is not new. Nor is it something only the US media has a problem with. ALL media is agonisingly biased. The entire nature of journalism has shifted from one of information to one of emotional manipulation.

There is a simple exercise anyone can do... take a typical news article and go through black out all words that are in the article primarily for emotional impact rather than to inform. I'm talking about words like "slaughter" and "innocent". Words like "massacre". Words like "shocking", "horrific". And so forth.

You can do this exercise with ANY newspaper in the world. I think you'll find almost all newspapers primarily use emotional manipulation. Look at the structure of articles. Often they will push with a particular line in the headline and in the first third of the article (statistically many people only read the beginning of an article), It is fairly common that, upon reading the ENTIRE article you actually realise the first third is all allegation, and often fairly weak at that. Often the second two-thirds COMPLETELY REFUTES the beginning and headline of the article.

These are TYPICAL media techniques. They are widespread and engrained into the industry. Quite frankly I would be stunned to find ANY news source that was reliable.

A personal anecdote:

Once while visiting my father (he's an intelligence officer) I noticed he had about 70+ news sites bookmarked on his internet browser. Some were fairly painfully biased. I asked him about it.

He explained that media reports were always considered "secondary" in his line of work. Generally if specific details were reported INDEPENDENTLY in multiple news sites across the political spectrum, it was considered to be "probable". Otherwise it was considered "possible". He admitted that not much "news" was used in his briefings because frankly, most of it was highly unreliable, if not entirely dishonest.

-Andrew

 

[RandFan]

If you are saying you think I'm distorting the facts this could go towards your view as well you know. Perhaps the real version is in the middle somewhere?

Perhaps. My only point is that we need to be skeptical of anyone who is capable of bias.

I think Stewart is at his best when he mocks politicians or asks pointed questions of Bill Bennett or other right leaning pundits, politicians or whatever. I think Stewart sometimes fails when it comes to turning a spot light on those on the left.

Let's all be skeptical of the news and any news source. Let's not simply nod our heads when the news fits our world view.

The genii is out of the bottle. Marketing forces an people in power are directing our news. However, the problem isn't the news organizations. It isn't CBS, NBC, ABC or FOX. The problem is us. This is democracy.

Your concern is valid and exposing the problems of the news is the best way to solve the problem but let's keep our focus on the problem and not engage in our own petty political peeves.

 

[RandFan]

I can't believe there is a thread somehow revealing the shocking truth that the media is biased, to the point of willingly lying, faking stories, and rewriting events to fit whatever they want to say.

Everyone, go out today and rent Mr. Smith Goes to Washington. The movie was released in 1939. If you haven't seen it then you are in for a bit of a surprise.

He explained that media reports were always considered "secondary" in his line of work. Generally if specific details were reported INDEPENDENTLY in multiple news sites across the political spectrum, it was considered to be "probable". Otherwise it was considered "possible". He admitted that not much "news" was used in his briefings because frankly, most of it was highly unreliable, if not entirely dishonest.

This so reminds me of the scene in Men Black where Kay reads the Gossip Tabloids to find the news of Aliens.

 

[President Bush]

I half expect to see someone criticizing Rowan and Martin for having been unfair toward the Nixon administration.

http://www.newyorker.com/talk/content/articles/060710ta_talk_remnick

As Andrew Card, the White House chief of staff at the time, told this magazine’s Ken Auletta, “They”—the media—“don’t represent the public any more than other people do. In our democracy, the people who represent the public stood for election. . . . I don’t believe you have a check-and-balance function.”

Fluoresce felching feculent fagottists.

 

[Skeptic Ginger]

I can't believe there is a thread somehow revealing the shocking truth that the media is biased, to the point of willingly lying, faking stories, and rewriting events to fit whatever they want to say.

Hello?

This is not new. ...

-Andrew

You are quick to condense this thread down to a single point, there is bias in the news. That is not what the thread is about so perhaps you might actually read the OP.

But in case you aren't interested enough to read it, let me summarize for you. The thread is about the increasing trend toward total control of information in the mainstream news and the trend toward pure propaganda and FAKE news, not mere bias.

 

[RandFan]

But in case you aren't interested enough to read it, let me summarize for you. The thread is about the increasing trend toward total control of information in the mainstream news and the trend toward pure propaganda and FAKE news, not mere bias.

Ok, let's go with that, it's a valid concern. Pick a news source. Any news source and identify the fake news?

http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
http://news.myway.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=
http://abcnews.go.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/http://abcnews.go.com/

Let's find out exactly what it is you are talking about? I'm assuming you are not simply talking about some anecdotes but a systemic and pervasive problem, right? So you should be able to identify it, right?

 

[blakehaydn]

It's extensive, it's vewy vewy extensive.

 

[SezMe]

Skeptigirl, here is an interesting chart of media ownership. Clicking on the chart itself will download a pdf for your review and amusement.

RandFan, this is the same link I posted in the other thread on media ownership.

 

[gumboot]

But in case you aren't interested enough to read it, let me summarize for you. The thread is about the increasing trend toward total control of information in the mainstream news and the trend toward pure propaganda and FAKE news, not mere bias.

If you talked to the Nazis about propaganda (they are the true masters of this art) they would have told you that the best propaganda told the truth.

It's not what you are saying that matters. It's HOW you are saying it.

By the way, if the media is being "totally controlled" who is controlling it, in your opinion? (And please don't say "the evil gubmint" or you might get bombarded with blatantly anti-government media articles).

-Andrew

 

[President Bush]

Ok, let's go with that, it's a valid concern. Pick a news source. Any news source and identify the fake news?

http://www.cnn.com/
http://www.msnbc.msn.com/
http://news.myway.com/
http://www.foxnews.com/
http://news.google.com/nwshp?hl=en&tab=wn&q=
http://abcnews.go.com/
http://www.cbsnews.com/http://abcnews.go.com/

Here's one reporting on this.

H.RES.895

Supporting intelligence and law enforcement programs to track terrorists and terrorist finances conducted consistent with Federal law and with appropriate Congressional consultation and specifically condemning the disclosure and publication of classified information that impairs the international fight against terrorism and needlessly exposes Americans to the threat of further terror attacks by revealing a crucial method by which terrorists are traced through their finances.

 

[Earthborn]

By the way, if the media is being "totally controlled" who is controlling it, in your opinion?

I think the answer to that question is probably cleverly encoded in the title of this thread.

 

[RandFan]

Skeptigirl, here is an interesting chart of media ownership. Clicking on the chart itself will download a pdf for your review and amusement.

RandFan, this is the same link I posted in the other thread on media ownership.

Yes, I remember. It's a great chart.

 

[gumboot]

I think the answer to that question is probably cleverly encoded in the title of this thread.

"corporate" doesn't really mean much.

"Corporate controlled fast food chains, how extensive is it?" Very. But does that means their food isn't food, and isn't made quickly?

In my experience all corporations are interested in is making lots of money for their shareholders. I fail to see how "pure propaganda" and "fake news" is an integral part of that objective. To me such accusations, especially considering the media is not all controlled by the same corporation, suggests some other darker more sinister agenda. That's what I'm asking about.

-Andrew

 

[SezMe]

By the way, if the media is being "totally controlled" who is controlling it, in your opinion? (And please don't say "the evil gubmint" or you might get bombarded with blatantly anti-government media articles).

gumboot, take a look at that site I mentioned above and click on the chart and look at it for 10 minutes. Then come back and tell me if you don't have your answer.