Media MOTIVES?

[Lynyrd_Skynyrd]

Recently I am really starting to hate CNN and other media companies because all they seem to be doing is competing with eachother over rating regardless of the public interest or interest atall infact...

 

 

 

I watch Robin& Company every morning and some of the trash they have on their is hilarious...really. This morning for example their headline was of course the suspected "terror" attack in Manhattan. But other headlines were the 200 people that died on the plane crash in Brazil aswell as two kids that stole a puppy in Wyoming , a cat that got stuck up a tree and something about two girls having their lemonade stand burgled???? Reminds me of that episode in furturama "We have some very tragic news to report....but thankfully very far away" and she smiles... kind of the same here, CNN doesn't care about MORALS just RATINGS.

 

 

 

Another thing is Robin herself, the only reason I watch the show so I can dream about my future wife. CNN have no credibility, they put a smoking hot girl with great legs in front of the camera that spends her time stuttering over big words and saying things like "two thirds is the same as three quarters". Robin is packing and everything but CREDIBILITY ANYONE?

 

 

 

Anyway...to make a point of this rant, what are media companies like outside the US and who agree's with me that the media has got out of control.

 

 

 

I'm not a hippy or anything, I am listening to free bird though so you know....hmmm I havent introduced myself yet *runs to the appropriate sticky*

[heartless619]

lol i agree i am hating what they put on the news also...

 

 

 

Who the F cares about two punk kids stealing a damn puppy in Wyoming?

 

besides the puppy's owners.

 

 

 

i agree they do put some stupid stuff stuff on the news..Lmao!

 

she said that?

 

 

 

but yea...Who really cares about some some lemonade stand being burgled? besides those little girls...As long as it isnt the lemonade stand were i deposit my money, or take my children to day care then i really don't give a flying F

 

 

 

(and i don't have kids)

[Abelmisi]

I don't really get your point.

 

 

 

Your problem is that some news channel put unrelevant news up?

[adam_ross0]

Yeah..I'm starting to hate it. Anymore, all the new media really cares about is getting that latest photo of some celebrity with a 2nd grade education (coughhiltoncough) so that they keep more viewers and have higher ratings to stay in business...and in the case of my local news..they spent 10 minutes advertising for our basketball and football teams with crappy ads and stuff, while another station did little stupid 'skits' to try and be funny as their spoprts guy was leaving.

 

 

 

-.-

[Giordano]

You're expecting equality in the capitalist-est country in the world?

 

 

 

Good hope.

[Lenin64]

You're expecting equality in the capitalist-est country in the world?

 

 

 

Good hope.

 

And thats my que! Of course that happens. Capitalists can put whatever they want on the news, it doesn;t even have to be about anything. In what you call Communism (Stalinism, really, not Communism) only the stuff that people need to know is on the news. Otherwise it would just be wasting resources, not a good thing. Even though the people wouldn;t get all the details, we still wouldn;t ogle at the fact that Angelina Jolie took a crap.

[Ichimaru]

Their motives? Imho, to keep people occupied.

[pfilc23]

...only the stuff that people need to know is on the news.

 

 

 

And the government decides "what the people need to know"! I'm sorry, but even tho I agree most of "news" these days is a ridiculous waste, I'd rather have corporations "deciding what we need to know" than the government (any government). Corporations are much more susceptible to public opinion that governments.

[Nadril]

You're expecting equality in the capitalist-est country in the world?

 

 

 

Good hope.

 

And thats my que! Of course that happens. Capitalists can put whatever they want on the news, it doesn;t even have to be about anything. In what you call Communism (Stalinism, really, not Communism) only the stuff that people need to know is on the news. Otherwise it would just be wasting resources, not a good thing. Even though the people wouldn;t get all the details, we still wouldn;t ogle at the fact that Angelina Jolie took a crap.

 

 

 

And its also much easier to keep what the people want to hear tucked behind tight lips. Remember, there is a different between what the people want and the government wants.

 

 

 

 

 

Anyways the media is mostly in it for the money. A good story will rake in a lot more cash. On the flip side you can't have TOP STORY all the time, there has to be filler stuff.

[hohto]

In what you call Communism (Stalinism, really, not Communism) only the stuff that people need to know is on the news.

 

 

 

And usually not even what they even needed to know.

 

 

 

Media companies are companies just like Jagex, Microsoft and the others. They need to make profit in order to keep providing us the facts we need or want. If people pay for hearing the newest gossip of Paris Hilton, then that should be put to the magazine.

 

 

 

The worst scenario would be goverment run tabloids. That would give the goverment free hands to censor unwanted stuff and add a lot of propaganda to boost and defend their own motives. We saw this during WW2, we've seen it before it and we've seen it after it.

 

 

 

The link between my 1st and 3rd chapter is rather obvious. In USSR for example the media was centralized and censored really roughly. This wasn't only during Stalin's time, it was before and after it. The ways of propaganda were different during different times, for example after WW2 the fear of facism&nazism were used to demonize western worlds, hide unwanted facts during worse times and in general gave a picture of a country which was a paradise. Of course too radical (truthful) editors were punished.

[Lenin64]

What the government feels we need to know is what we need to know. However, in America, we are brainwashed by the government. But who brainwashes the government? the media. So what the media feels we need to know is what the government feels we need to know, which is what the media shows, so while the government thinks they are controlling the media, it's the other way around. Confused yet? Yea, me too...

[hohto]

What the government feels we need to know is what we need to know. However, in America, we are brainwashed by the government. But who brainwashes the government? the media. So what the media feels we need to know is what the government feels we need to know, which is what the media shows, so while the government thinks they are controlling the media, it's the other way around. Confused yet? Yea, me too...

 

 

 

Seriously, how blind are you? The goverment has its goals and motives which always don't meet with the needs of the people. I already gave you examples how biased media was in your paradise called USSR. The media shouldn't brainwash the nation to believe it's right to do things that actually hurt themselves or that are morally wrong. According to the Soviet media, UK, USA and many other western nations were neofacist/nazist countries after WW2. Do you see it like this? Were UK, the land bombed by nazis, a radical rightwing country? Was USSR same kind of a paradise which their media preached about? The answer for both is a big no.

 

 

 

Second, the US media doesn't brainwash the political elite, not even in USA. They might bring up unwanted things for politicians, but in my eyes that's a lot better than the media running political motives. The only way how free media could affect to politicians is that they are nation's microphone and might pressure the politicians in the name of people.

 

 

 

The more power the goverment has over media, the less truthful views we get from daily situations. If you want to be free, you need a free media. Good thing for 21st century is that internet can be counted to be part of media.

[speedofsound]

But even the internet can be controlled. Websites can be shutdown, forums closed, people silenced. All a government needs to do is stage false events to justify any law they want, claiming it to be in the interest of the people, but really only so they can furthur there own agenda. It's happened before and as we all know, history repeats itself.

 

 

 

As for CNN, I think Aderson Cooper does a good job trying to report the facts rather then just fluff.

[MrTeaSpoon]

Control, and money. I don't even turn the TV on much at all anymore, only when the things I watch are on. And just look at all the junk food publicity they put on, I don't watch it or I'll end eating something when I'm not hungry at all.

[Evrae]

I would go on about the wonders of the BBC, but unfortunately they've been in a little trouble lately. So I'll say what the BBC is in theory.

 

 

 

The BBC is (in theory) one of the only non-political state owned broadcasters in the world. Plenty of countries have state owned broadcasters, but the follow the governments orders. In theory the BBC is completely apolitical, and separate from government. Its publicly funded, direct from viewers via the license fee. In theory the only people its responsible to are the public. Very few people in England actually appreciate how great the BBC is, until it goes wrong. And then there is hell to pay.

 

 

 

At the moment the BBC is in deep [cabbage]. They basically got caught lying - altered the implied order of events in documentaries to give a completely different meaning. And then it was found that the big phone-in charity quizzes had been rigged, as had one of the more popular kids programs.

 

 

 

There has also been a few issues with a perceived systematic bias in reporting of the Middle East. Some accuse it of undue bias towards the Pallestinians.

 

 

 

Aside from that, the BBC is excellent. Most of the programs are of good quality, unlike those of the private broadcasters. For the most part it is (or at least appears to be) impartial. A bit too impartial in my opinion - getting the leader of the BNP in as a talking head on immigration was going a bit far.

 

 

 

The problem with the media is that it is so hard to tell when it goes wrong - after all, its rare that they will admit it. Which is why I still respect the BBC. They owned up and apologised, saying they'll make it better. And I believe them - they can hardly do otherwise.

 

 

 

At the same time, it is important to read things from more than one source. I read newspaper from across the political spectrum - the Telegraph, the Guardian and the Times. Solidly Right, Left and nearly in the middle respectively.

 

 

 

But yeah, from what I've heard from friends who've visited America, we are pretty lucky in England with our TV.

[Zonorhc]

It's called a slow news cycle. Live with it.

 

 

 

It's the only way they can make money when there's nothing more important that Paris Hilton's latest escapades to report on.

[Lynyrd_Skynyrd]

I don't really get your point.

 

 

 

Your problem is that some news channel put unrelevant news up?

 

 

 

News is meant to be news, when something about a lemonade stand being burgled is placed on par with a plane crash something is wrong here...how can you not see that though?

 

 

 

It's the only way they can make money when there's nothing more important that Paris Hilton's latest escapades to report on.

 

 

 

I don't think the media should be about making money, but should be for the public like the police service etc, they're there because it is necessary to uphold the law or in this case democracy. Anyway you are right but I'm just an idealist...

[hohto]

I don't think the media should be about making money, but should be for the public like the police service etc, they're there because it is necessary to uphold the law or in this case democracy. Anyway you are right but I'm just an idealist...

 

 

 

It's not free at all to run a news company. They need to pay salaries for their reporters, get expensive equipment, in some cases print stuff and so on. To get this money (and no1 ever says no for some extra either), they need to also need to add stuff that may not be informative when it comes for domestic or international situation or get it from taxes. However tax paid magazine could really easily turn into a propaganda machine like said earlier.

 

 

 

Also you seem to forget that news are about things that we are interested in. If no1 was interested in Paris Hilton, she wouldn't get the attention she's now getting. If people weren't interested in cases like 9/11, we'd read as much about it as we did from various attacks in places like Africa. If people are interested in it, it's worth publishing. If not, then it can be dumped.

[Lynyrd_Skynyrd]

I don't think the media should be about making money, but should be for the public like the police service etc, they're there because it is necessary to uphold the law or in this case democracy. Anyway you are right but I'm just an idealist...

 

 

 

It's not free at all to run a news company. They need to pay salaries for their reporters, get expensive equipment, in some cases print stuff and so on. To get this money (and no1 ever says no for some extra either), they need to also need to add stuff that may not be informative when it comes for domestic or international situation or get it from taxes. However tax paid magazine could really easily turn into a propaganda machine like said earlier.

 

 

 

Also you seem to forget that news are about things that we are interested in. If no1 was interested in Paris Hilton, she wouldn't get the attention she's now getting. If people weren't interested in cases like 9/11, we'd read as much about it as we did from various attacks in places like Africa. If people are interested in it, it's worth publishing. If not, then it can be dumped.

 

 

 

You have a point however as Evrae mentioned earlier the BBC comes from tax payers money and as he said that is very non biased and nothing close to propaganda that you implied.

 

 

 

I very much disagree with your second paragraph because of ethics, the media controls what the people can think, if they didn't make such a hype about Paris Hilton then and only then would people stop paying attention to her. It is not a case of whether it is worth publishing or not because the media is an incredible tool at swaying public opinion. If companies were more ethically minded I'm sure they could increase interest for proper stories that actually have an affect on people's emotions which could be used to do good things, like raising awareness of problems over the globe. Not just trying to make the news an entertainment progam in which people can be fed fairy tales that everything is alright in the world.

[Evrae]

Unfortunately the BBC is a pretty special case. I can't think of another state owned broadcaster that is apolitical. I'm just thankful that the politicians resisted the temptations when it was set up.

 

 

 

The question of whether media reflects or determines what the public wants is a tricky one. In some areas the media has a massive affect in shaping public opinion. In other areas, the media reflects the opinion of its audience. An interesting case was when the Sun newspaper decided to make a big deal about paedophiles. Now everyone agrees that paedophilia is a dreadful thing. But the newspaper used rhetoric such that mobs attacked released paedophiles, and even the offices of paediatricians (something completely different). Were these articles the result of public opinion? Partly, yes. But they also shaped public opinion, resulting in senseless violence. They also partly changed what people thought was newsworthy. The issue of paedophiles living near schools became newsworthy because the Sun (or Murdoch) decided to make it so.

 

 

 

So it is a bit of both. The media can alter what is popular, but only slowly. First you need an audience, then you can start working on their opinions.

[tomdavies90]

Freebird, Freebird, Freebird, Freebird.

 

 

 

I agree though, I think the news gets dumber everyday, it's like when Madeliene McCann was in the news every freaking day, they'd have 15 minutes about how they can't find her, then at the end they'd be like, "That's almost all from us, but in other news, 200 people were killed in a car bomb, an avalanche crushed a ski-resort trapping 300 people, so far none have been found and a puppy called Fred has this week learned to juggle, over the Pete for more on this!" then they'd go on for 2 minutes about this stupid story...

[hohto]

I very much disagree with your second paragraph because of ethics, the media controls what the people can think, if they didn't make such a hype about Paris Hilton then and only then would people stop paying attention to her. It is not a case of whether it is worth publishing or not because the media is an incredible tool at swaying public opinion. If companies were more ethically minded I'm sure they could increase interest for proper stories that actually have an affect on people's emotions which could be used to do good things, like raising awareness of problems over the globe. Not just trying to make the news an entertainment progam in which people can be fed fairy tales that everything is alright in the world.

 

 

 

It's true that to be interested in Paris Hilton, we first need to know how she is and why should we be interested in her. If you look at it in larger scale, Paris Hilton herself isn't the thing that sells, it's her story: we want to see how celebrities and rich people live. Basically Paris Hilton is the same thing we've seen many times earlier.

 

 

 

Also should the media inform us in as neutral way as possible what has happened or will happen? If people don't wake up from it, it's not the media who we should blame for it. I personally was against the whole hype of how this little girl got kidnapped. However people got interested in that story and of course companies threw more fuel for fire.

 

 

 

However if we wanted to make this world a better place, we should first get more moral leaders, gun manufactors, car manufactors and basically many other things before we should go for more moral for media. It currently works well enough for our needs as we got many non-political news sources.

 

 

 

You have a point however as Evrae mentioned earlier the BBC comes from tax payers money and as he said that is very non biased and nothing close to propaganda that you implied.

 

 

 

And like he continued, it's a special case.

[Lynyrd_Skynyrd]

Also should the media inform us in as neutral way as possible what has happened or will happen? If people don't wake up from it, it's not the media who we should blame for it. I personally was against the whole hype of how this little girl got kidnapped. However people got interested in that story and of course companies threw more fuel for fire.

 

 

 

However if we wanted to make this world a better place, we should first get more moral leaders, gun manufactors, car manufactors and basically many other things before we should go for more moral for media. It currently works well enough for our needs as we got many non-political news sources.

 

 

 

 

Point taken however I see the media as an awesome weapon that over time could be used to do so much (I'm talking about good things here). We disagree in discussion about the little girl, although I'm not sure you might agree with me. That the problem lies with the media being a company in search of money and power.

 

 

 

When you mentioned the little girl I don't see that as so much as a bad example although yes it was blown out of proportion as hundreds of children die everyday but it is the joke stories about the lemonade stand and trivial pointless things that irk me the most.

 

 

 

However it is difficult to enforce my beliefs that the media is a good weapon that could be used for good instead of crap, as it is inevitably down to the media tycoons. Naturally though I strongly disagree with Lenin64 the communist, as I would want the government to stay out of the media. But the BBC is a perfect example! I think other media companies in the US should take heed from the British.