Media Madness
Posted: Thursday, November 04, 2010
by Joyce Dunn
Is anyone else as disillusioned or disgusted with the media as I am? It seems we are fed nothing but sound bites, often inaccurate or misleading sound bites.
Local newscasts spend an inordinate amount of time on fluff' stories or giving teasers as to what their next newscast will feature.
Even so-called respected newscasts are not immune from providing false information. During the oil spill crisis it was reported on NBC Nightly News that X% of the oil was thought to have evaporated or dissipated.' Over time oil may harden into a sticky sludge-like consistency, but it never evaporates.
Newspapers frequently post a small article about some new medical breakthrough or discovery, when in fact what they are reporting is information that the medical community has been aware of for some time. The implications of this new' discovery are rarely elaborated on.
I also have to wonder if it would make any difference in election outcomes if we were not bombarded with theories about who will or won't win, or how many people will get out and vote. Once the polls have closed and ballots are being counted, it's fine to provide projections of who won, but not for days, sometimes weeks before the election.
I'd be interested in hearing any theories as to why all this is so, and ideas about an effective way of changing all this.
This Article has been viewed 1,065 times. (Not updated in real-time.)
More commentsI fully agree with you Joyce.We get distorted facts, sometimes downright lies fed to us through, mainly, 24 hour news broadcasts.I agree about the interviewing of politicians, I can't remember the last time one of them actually answered the question they are asked and yes, the interviewer rarely pursues them for the answer.Election times are a goldmine of speculation, polls (with a ridiculously small number of people questioned) and I do think that some people are influenced to vote a certain way by the 'facts' they are fed.Great article by the way:)BillThanks for the comment/compliment Bill. It is discouraging, isn't it?
"Local newscasts spend an inordinate amount of time on fluff' stories or giving teasers as to what their next newscast will feature." I'm in the same boat with you, Joyce. My theory is that our society embraced this reality when many enthrone PROFIT (that comes from advertising/commercials), ENTERTAINMENT (what makes our side feel good or gets under the opponent's skin), and RELATIVISM (rejection of absolute, objective truth). News is now all about the contest to draw in the most number of viewers, and that means more advertising dollars, outrageous salaries, making truthful, factual reporting a side issue. ~mogama~Thanks Mogama. I'm sure you are 100% right. Really sad commentary on the American public, isn't it?
I'm used to the BBC news broadcasts and compared to CNN/FOX news from the US, the BBC is probably more factual and is presented like a news programme should be, in my view ;)
The US news presenting style is much more 'showtime' and I agree with mogama, too much emphasis on pulling in viewers.
That's not to say the BBC isn't guilty of distorting facts for sensation, but not to the extent I've seen on US programmes.
BillThanks for your comments Bill. Wonder if we'll ever get to a point where the 'bottom line' no longer rules?
There are several questions that should be asked about the media. And your concerns are noteworthy. I think one of the big issues is the reporters see themselves as part of the news, and thus see their jobs as being less about work and more about image.Good point Christofer. Thanks for your comment.
Good thought provoking article Joyce.
Unfortunately you can't fight city hall. Many reporters today apparently lack the skill and the ambition to follow a story from start to finish and uncover all the facts. The apparent lack of journalistic chutzpa on the part of many media members causes the items reported to be bland and more sensational than real.
The reporters themselves are either avidly seeking sinecure with an established news source or an editorial position with a national news reporting agency. You also have to remember that many media giants , both electronic and print, are continuously laying off seasoned editorial staff. Who really wants to peeve an employer aleady aching and determined to lessen his bloated payrolls?
The reporter is however but a small cog in the wheel of many media enterprises. Many times editors, publishers and shareholders secretly want the reporting staff to be productive but not make waves so as to jeopardize stock prices. Therefore the newspaper , magazine or televised newscast offers just enough information to whet the public's appetite without inadvertently upsetting newsmakers, financial supporters and supposedly public sensitivities.
Ben Bradley of the Washington Post back in the day had his Woodward and Bernstein team to uncover the crooked dealings of a less than honest presidential staff. That dedicated news team took an unpopular stance but eventually the fruits of their labors paid off. Today we can only hope that news reporting teams can correctly spell the names of the players involved in many of the stories they report. An in depth analysis and follow up of the events would be a corportate no-no and not a particularly wise career move for a young reporter.
Times have certainly changed Joyce. My advice: read a book and let the media spin doctors fabricate their own fictional renditions of reality without your implicit consent or public disapproval. It's a lot easier on the nerves .Times definitely have changed, Gerry, more's the pity. I do read a book now and then, :), and would watch less news if my hubby wasn't so addicted to it. Which points up another problem, IMHO. The American people, maybe humanity in general, seems to be addicted to the "Ain't it awful" mindset. I also agree with Gregory that the basis of the problem is management and the almighty dollar. Thanks for your thoughtful comments.
I think it's a pity when the young people of today think Jon Stewart represents news. Now who do you think their children are going to believe for their news sources? I do believe the outcome of almost anything could be changed if bombarded with enough theories on the television 24/7.
I do agree with Gregory that BBC and PBS are some of the better news sources, but with so much controlling of how much of the story if any gets told, who do you trust? I surf the web and get more and better information than from the TV.Good points Linda. Thanks for your comments.
Thanks for your comments Yosef.
I have chosen to stop watching news and reading papers. Checking once a day some websites and headlines…Don’t miss it at all.That's a good plan. Thanks for commenting.
I'm sick of the news and how facts get distorted, either deliberately or through unintelligent reporting - plus, how many facts just get hidden from us? But I have lately started watching a couple of (mostly) BBC programs where a panel discusses a topic. They're all pretty well-informed and independent-minded, and I find that I get a better all-round view of the topic, which leaves me free to make up my own mind.Thanks for your comments. I'll have to see if I can find BBC here...other than on the internet that is. I really don't enjoy reading off the net. :)
I don't watch anything that is projected on TV except some important news. It kills time...Thanks for the write up.
More comments
We want your comments! If you can read this, you don't have javascript enabled, so you can't use this comment system. Please enable javascript.