all questions about news media

fifefife Posts: 3,020
So everywhere you look and read, you see the media being attacked but you don't really see people talking about how they would like to see the news media fixed. 

do people view print media as better or more accurate than TV media?  if so why do you believe that and how would you fix that?
Do you believe that print news is less Bias than Tv news?  if so why do you believe that and how would you fix that?
what do you think is the role of print media is and do they live up to that role?  if not how would you fix that?
What do you think the role of TV media is and do they live up to that role?  if not how would you fix that?

these are some basic question ands who knows people might call them stupid question.  feel free to add your own question but lets try to answer some question.
«1

Comments

  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 19,947
    Start with encouraging newscasters to emulate the likes of Dan Rather who, despite being embroiled in controversy over Bushes military past, was committed to integrity in the news media. 

    "Those who dumb down the news, trivialize the news with in-studio shouting matches passing for debate, those who tart up the news with celebrity gossip, scandal and sensationalism are playing right into the hands of those that stand to gain the most from the news being seen as irrelevant and trivial and no more or less worth your attention than the next episode of 'American Idol.' [...] I worry that if it becomes no more than a reality show, something that could be scripted and rigged behind the scenes without anyone really getting upset about it, that our freedom of the press will become another one of those constitutionally granted rights that can be watered down and eventually taken away from us.

    (Speech 3 February 2011 at San Antonio College, as quoted in Jeanne Jakle, "Rather warns media is in 'statew of crisis'" San Antonio Express-News, 4 February 2011.)

    And rock like Dan too!








    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,370
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 19,947
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    Oh now stop making me feel so old!  :lol:

    No, seriously, in the 50's and much of the sixties (at least) the media was held in much better respect.  We never heard about "liberal media bias" and we never had loudmouth egos like O'What's-His-Face and Rusty Limbomb etc. making a mockery of media.  News (especially local TV news) became much more sensationalized by the 70's and has degraded to a farcical "news" version of "Entertainment Tonight".  News was much more straight forward when I was a kid.  Not necessarily totally unbiased or factual, but W-A-A-A-y more so than today.

    Sorry to see print media going away, but it does save trees.  In a "world made by hand", I think we will see it return.
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 8,571
    brianlux said:
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    Oh now stop making me feel so old!  :lol:

    No, seriously, in the 50's and much of the sixties (at least) the media was held in much better respect.  We never heard about "liberal media bias" and we never had loudmouth egos like O'What's-His-Face and Rusty Limbomb etc. making a mockery of media.  News (especially local TV news) became much more sensationalized by the 70's and has degraded to a farcical "news" version of "Entertainment Tonight".  News was much more straight forward when I was a kid.  Not necessarily totally unbiased or factual, but W-A-A-A-y more so than today.

    Sorry to see print media going away, but it does save trees.  In a "world made by hand", I think we will see it return.
    The great documentary films Anchorman and Anchorman 2 show this demise in the general integrity of media.  It's all Ron Burgundy's fault.
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 19,947
    rgambs said:
    brianlux said:
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    Oh now stop making me feel so old!  :lol:

    No, seriously, in the 50's and much of the sixties (at least) the media was held in much better respect.  We never heard about "liberal media bias" and we never had loudmouth egos like O'What's-His-Face and Rusty Limbomb etc. making a mockery of media.  News (especially local TV news) became much more sensationalized by the 70's and has degraded to a farcical "news" version of "Entertainment Tonight".  News was much more straight forward when I was a kid.  Not necessarily totally unbiased or factual, but W-A-A-A-y more so than today.

    Sorry to see print media going away, but it does save trees.  In a "world made by hand", I think we will see it return.
    The great documentary films Anchorman and Anchorman 2 show this demise in the general integrity of media.  It's all Ron Burgundy's fault.
    I missed these, will check them out!
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,886
    edited May 18
    brianlux said:
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    Oh now stop making me feel so old!  :lol:

    No, seriously, in the 50's and much of the sixties (at least) the media was held in much better respect.  We never heard about "liberal media bias" and we never had loudmouth egos like O'What's-His-Face and Rusty Limbomb etc. making a mockery of media.  News (especially local TV news) became much more sensationalized by the 70's and has degraded to a farcical "news" version of "Entertainment Tonight".  News was much more straight forward when I was a kid.  Not necessarily totally unbiased or factual, but W-A-A-A-y more so than today.

    Sorry to see print media going away, but it does save trees.  In a "world made by hand", I think we will see it return.
    I would say that calling news media in general a farcical news version of entertainment tonight is overstating things quite a bit, but I get your gist. Though I think what you're saying more applies to the major USA news networks than it does to local news stations and international news networks like BBC and Al Jazeera, and I think that's because US news networks are huge 24/7 enterprises, and they are all competing much more ferociously than local news outlets or the "big 2" international ones are. And competition in US media, of course, always grows into sensationalistic bullshit, because that is was the American masses seem to like more. The news networks only do it because people watch it. So who is really to blame? I personally couldn't take it anymore and cancelled CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al a couple of years ago. I don't miss them at all.
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • rgambsrgambs Posts: 8,571
    brianlux said:
    rgambs said:
    brianlux said:
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    Oh now stop making me feel so old!  :lol:

    No, seriously, in the 50's and much of the sixties (at least) the media was held in much better respect.  We never heard about "liberal media bias" and we never had loudmouth egos like O'What's-His-Face and Rusty Limbomb etc. making a mockery of media.  News (especially local TV news) became much more sensationalized by the 70's and has degraded to a farcical "news" version of "Entertainment Tonight".  News was much more straight forward when I was a kid.  Not necessarily totally unbiased or factual, but W-A-A-A-y more so than today.

    Sorry to see print media going away, but it does save trees.  In a "world made by hand", I think we will see it return.
    The great documentary films Anchorman and Anchorman 2 show this demise in the general integrity of media.  It's all Ron Burgundy's fault.
    I missed these, will check them out!
    They aren't documentaries at all lol
    They ARE 2 of Will Ferrell's funniest movies though!
    Monkey Driven, Call this Living?
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,886
    edited May 18
    whoops
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    I don't know if media has always been attacked in the same way that it has been for say 30 years and I don't think it just "liberal media" but also "conservatives media"  sure people attack fox news but there are other conservative media that is not fox news.  Just like there are other news sites that are not MSMBC. 

    I sometimes wonder if the internet is the reason why main news stream changed.  with the internet, you get news right away and not alot of fact checking. 

    I am still a big fan of print media and yes I agree that its almost dead but I do believe that print media tends to be more fair and balance. 

     
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    PJ_Soul said:
    brianlux said:
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    Oh now stop making me feel so old!  :lol:

    No, seriously, in the 50's and much of the sixties (at least) the media was held in much better respect.  We never heard about "liberal media bias" and we never had loudmouth egos like O'What's-His-Face and Rusty Limbomb etc. making a mockery of media.  News (especially local TV news) became much more sensationalized by the 70's and has degraded to a farcical "news" version of "Entertainment Tonight".  News was much more straight forward when I was a kid.  Not necessarily totally unbiased or factual, but W-A-A-A-y more so than today.

    Sorry to see print media going away, but it does save trees.  In a "world made by hand", I think we will see it return.
    I would say that calling news media in general a farcical news version of entertainment tonight is overstating things quite a bit, but I get your gist. Though I think what you're saying more applies to the major USA news networks than it does to local news stations and international news networks like BBC and Al Jazeera, and I think that's because US news networks are huge 24/7 enterprises, and they are all competing much more ferociously than local news outlets or the "big 2" international ones are. And competition in US media, of course, always grows into sensationalistic bullshit, because that is was the American masses seem to like more. The news networks only do it because people watch it. So who is really to blame? I personally couldn't take it anymore and cancelled CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al a couple of years ago. I don't miss them at all.
    do you mind me asking what makes you think that news networks like the BBC and Al Jazeera are different than say CNN or other major USA networks? 
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    brianlux said:
    Start with encouraging newscasters to emulate the likes of Dan Rather who, despite being embroiled in controversy over Bushes military past, was committed to integrity in the news media. 

    "Those who dumb down the news, trivialize the news with in-studio shouting matches passing for debate, those who tart up the news with celebrity gossip, scandal and sensationalism are playing right into the hands of those that stand to gain the most from the news being seen as irrelevant and trivial and no more or less worth your attention than the next episode of 'American Idol.' [...] I worry that if it becomes no more than a reality show, something that could be scripted and rigged behind the scenes without anyone really getting upset about it, that our freedom of the press will become another one of those constitutionally granted rights that can be watered down and eventually taken away from us.

    (Speech 3 February 2011 at San Antonio College, as quoted in Jeanne Jakle, "Rather warns media is in 'statew of crisis'" San Antonio Express-News, 4 February 2011.)

    And rock like Dan too!








      I have like Dan Rather and read his book which was great.  This is a very interesting quote but it does make me think of a question.  would people watch the news more if we followed what dan rather says?  It seems to be that as a society we have gotten to a point where all we want is instant gratification.  we want it in our news, sports, TV shows etc. 
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 19,947
    fife said:
    brianlux said:
    Start with encouraging newscasters to emulate the likes of Dan Rather who, despite being embroiled in controversy over Bushes military past, was committed to integrity in the news media. 

    "Those who dumb down the news, trivialize the news with in-studio shouting matches passing for debate, those who tart up the news with celebrity gossip, scandal and sensationalism are playing right into the hands of those that stand to gain the most from the news being seen as irrelevant and trivial and no more or less worth your attention than the next episode of 'American Idol.' [...] I worry that if it becomes no more than a reality show, something that could be scripted and rigged behind the scenes without anyone really getting upset about it, that our freedom of the press will become another one of those constitutionally granted rights that can be watered down and eventually taken away from us.

    (Speech 3 February 2011 at San Antonio College, as quoted in Jeanne Jakle, "Rather warns media is in 'statew of crisis'" San Antonio Express-News, 4 February 2011.)

    And rock like Dan too!








      I have like Dan Rather and read his book which was great.  This is a very interesting quote but it does make me think of a question.  would people watch the news more if we followed what dan rather says?  It seems to be that as a society we have gotten to a point where all we want is instant gratification.  we want it in our news, sports, TV shows etc. 
    That's a very good question.  I want to say, "Yes, of course.  People would go back to wanting to get as close to the truth of things as possible."  My my experience, based on what I see and read tells me, "No, here in America at least, people in general have become much more interested in vicarious thrills, gossip, sensationalism and trivia."  My logic (which always goes back to the idea of doing what makes sense no matter how things turn out) says, "Keep advocating for truth and maybe someday we as a culture will begin to demand knowing what the score really is."  But, damn, it's been difficult to hold on to that thread of hope in these most strange of days.
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,886
    fife said:
    PJ_Soul said:
    brianlux said:
    The media being attacked has always been the case. Anything whining about liberal media bias is fabricated garbage done by conservatives. Probably because facts don't mesh with their worldview. TV news has a lot of fluffy drama, but also good content when you sift through it. The internet is a bit of a double edge sword at this point in it's history: it's a great source of news and info, but people are still learning how to digest it. Print media will eventually be 100% dead. 
    Oh now stop making me feel so old!  :lol:

    No, seriously, in the 50's and much of the sixties (at least) the media was held in much better respect.  We never heard about "liberal media bias" and we never had loudmouth egos like O'What's-His-Face and Rusty Limbomb etc. making a mockery of media.  News (especially local TV news) became much more sensationalized by the 70's and has degraded to a farcical "news" version of "Entertainment Tonight".  News was much more straight forward when I was a kid.  Not necessarily totally unbiased or factual, but W-A-A-A-y more so than today.

    Sorry to see print media going away, but it does save trees.  In a "world made by hand", I think we will see it return.
    I would say that calling news media in general a farcical news version of entertainment tonight is overstating things quite a bit, but I get your gist. Though I think what you're saying more applies to the major USA news networks than it does to local news stations and international news networks like BBC and Al Jazeera, and I think that's because US news networks are huge 24/7 enterprises, and they are all competing much more ferociously than local news outlets or the "big 2" international ones are. And competition in US media, of course, always grows into sensationalistic bullshit, because that is was the American masses seem to like more. The news networks only do it because people watch it. So who is really to blame? I personally couldn't take it anymore and cancelled CNN, MSNBC, FOX, et al a couple of years ago. I don't miss them at all.
    do you mind me asking what makes you think that news networks like the BBC and Al Jazeera are different than say CNN or other major USA networks? 
    Because my eyes and ears and brain work.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    brianlux said:
    fife said:
    brianlux said:
    Start with encouraging newscasters to emulate the likes of Dan Rather who, despite being embroiled in controversy over Bushes military past, was committed to integrity in the news media. 

    "Those who dumb down the news, trivialize the news with in-studio shouting matches passing for debate, those who tart up the news with celebrity gossip, scandal and sensationalism are playing right into the hands of those that stand to gain the most from the news being seen as irrelevant and trivial and no more or less worth your attention than the next episode of 'American Idol.' [...] I worry that if it becomes no more than a reality show, something that could be scripted and rigged behind the scenes without anyone really getting upset about it, that our freedom of the press will become another one of those constitutionally granted rights that can be watered down and eventually taken away from us.

    (Speech 3 February 2011 at San Antonio College, as quoted in Jeanne Jakle, "Rather warns media is in 'statew of crisis'" San Antonio Express-News, 4 February 2011.)

    And rock like Dan too!








      I have like Dan Rather and read his book which was great.  This is a very interesting quote but it does make me think of a question.  would people watch the news more if we followed what dan rather says?  It seems to be that as a society we have gotten to a point where all we want is instant gratification.  we want it in our news, sports, TV shows etc. 
    That's a very good question.  I want to say, "Yes, of course.  People would go back to wanting to get as close to the truth of things as possible."  My my experience, based on what I see and read tells me, "No, here in America at least, people in general have become much more interested in vicarious thrills, gossip, sensationalism and trivia."  My logic (which always goes back to the idea of doing what makes sense no matter how things turn out) says, "Keep advocating for truth and maybe someday we as a culture will begin to demand knowing what the score really is."  But, damn, it's been difficult to hold on to that thread of hope in these most strange of days.
    In Canada you have the CBC which is gets it funding mostly from the government but does get money from advertising and other avenues.  while the funding is mostly from the government the CBC is not considered a state run media.  While i understand that there is an issue with government funding news, i also believe that one way to correct the current media situation now in the USA  is to take the money out of the news.  Ido people believe that might work or no?
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020


    interesting view point about local news.  Love John Oliver


  • tempo_n_groovetempo_n_groove Posts: 8,182
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 19,947
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,328
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • brianluxbrianlux Moving through All Kinds of Terrain.Posts: 19,947
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    Bingo!
    We're living on the edge of something big. It's a fantastic time in history to be alive.
    AMT, 1.25.15, 00:36 hrs.
    ***********
    M.I.T.S.
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,370
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    The McRib of Presidents. 
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Hey Tempo, I understand what you are saying here but I do have some questions.  it seems to me that you are kindof wanting different things at the same time.  if as people we want the 3 W of the WHO, THE WHAT, THE WHERE then stories have to be long sometimes. 



  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    maybe its just me but I understand the obsession of reality TV.  reality TV makes every day people stars and being a star is great (atleast thats what many people believe)  you don't need to have any talent, you just need personality and many people look at that as that can be them. 

  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,585
    Honestly the media has themselves to blame for a lot of this.  The move to Op-Ed shows in primetime and less straight-forward news gives people something to point out.  I can;t stand the spin the MSNBCs and Fox News shows put on.  It drives me nuts that they always ignore anything that doesn't fit their agenda.  And once you do that on a bunch of OP-ed shows over time....people start thinking you are always doing it.  

    Now - we could blame the American public as this is what has been getting ratings.
    hippiemom = goodness
  • Go BeaversGo Beavers Posts: 5,370
    fife said:
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    maybe its just me but I understand the obsession of reality TV.  reality TV makes every day people stars and being a star is great (atleast thats what many people believe)  you don't need to have any talent, you just need personality and many people look at that as that can be them. 

    I wonder about the distinction between a documantary and a reality show. Like the King of Kong documentary. While it was interesting, it's basically about two goobers trying to best the others high score in Donkey Kong. Or the Grey Gardens one. It's just filming two people with interesting personalities
  • cincybearcatcincybearcat Posts: 8,585
    fife said:
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    maybe its just me but I understand the obsession of reality TV.  reality TV makes every day people stars and being a star is great (atleast thats what many people believe)  you don't need to have any talent, you just need personality and many people look at that as that can be them. 

    I wonder about the distinction between a documantary and a reality show. Like the King of Kong documentary. While it was interesting, it's basically about two goobers trying to best the others high score in Donkey Kong. Or the Grey Gardens one. It's just filming two people with interesting personalities
    This is a solid question I hadn;t really thought about.  

    I think of documentaries taking a look at an issue.  But there are others that really don't get into that.  
    hippiemom = goodness
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    Honestly the media has themselves to blame for a lot of this.  The move to Op-Ed shows in primetime and less straight-forward news gives people something to point out.  I can;t stand the spin the MSNBCs and Fox News shows put on.  It drives me nuts that they always ignore anything that doesn't fit their agenda.  And once you do that on a bunch of OP-ed shows over time....people start thinking you are always doing it.  

    Now - we could blame the American public as this is what has been getting ratings.
    I completely agree with this.  I do believe that there is a purpose and a good reason to OP-ed shows but there seems to be many of them. 

  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,886
    I think Op-eds are great, except that they require the viewers to watch many of them in order to get a well-rounded view of the subject. I don't think that people who are just one-offing these kinds of shows benefit from them at all. On the contrary. I think they are only valuable to people who are really engaged in politics and who go out of their way to watch several of them on a regular basis to get the whole picture. As it is, too many people might, for example, only watch Sean Hannity or Alex Jones or someone, and that's it. That is a real problem for obvious reasons. I think it's a bigger problem for Conservatives, just because the right has way more radical, crazy-ass shows like this out there - I mean, there is not really any left equivalent of Alex Jones or Rush Limbaugh types.
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
  • fifefife Posts: 3,020
    fife said:
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    maybe its just me but I understand the obsession of reality TV.  reality TV makes every day people stars and being a star is great (atleast thats what many people believe)  you don't need to have any talent, you just need personality and many people look at that as that can be them. 

    I wonder about the distinction between a documantary and a reality show. Like the King of Kong documentary. While it was interesting, it's basically about two goobers trying to best the others high score in Donkey Kong. Or the Grey Gardens one. It's just filming two people with interesting personalities
    while I might get slammed for this, I don't see that much of a difference between many documentary and reality shows. 
  • tbergstbergs Posts: 2,328
    fife said:
    fife said:
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    maybe its just me but I understand the obsession of reality TV.  reality TV makes every day people stars and being a star is great (atleast thats what many people believe)  you don't need to have any talent, you just need personality and many people look at that as that can be them. 

    I wonder about the distinction between a documantary and a reality show. Like the King of Kong documentary. While it was interesting, it's basically about two goobers trying to best the others high score in Donkey Kong. Or the Grey Gardens one. It's just filming two people with interesting personalities
    while I might get slammed for this, I don't see that much of a difference between many documentary and reality shows. 
    I think I get what you mean. Both can be informative, but most times it's the outrageous or over the top ones that get noticed the most, therefore prompting others to follow suit. My problem comes more from reality shows like the Kardashians and Docs that have no grounding in truth or are sensationalized. Its ok to tell a story from one point of view, but unfortunately some take that as fact. Propaganda at its best.
    It's a hopeless situation...
  • PJ_SoulPJ_Soul Vancouver, BCPosts: 35,886
    edited July 14
    tbergs said:
    fife said:
    fife said:
    tbergs said:
    brianlux said:
    Print media is going away unfortunately.  Everyone wants short, quick stories.  I for one hate a dragged out story.  Give me the Who, where, how, why and When.  I don't need the back story or tangent of things irrelevant other than to fill up space.

    Something else I dislike is people whom really know nothing about the subject but feel the need to push their agenda on the situation.  I think that's a turn off in any form of news media.

    I also don't mind either form of medium as long as it's articulate, not biased and researched correctly.

    If anything needs fixing it's the op-ed pieces that pass for news.  Hanity is not always news.  Matt Taibbi is not always news.

    Do more reporting and less rabble rousing.
    Rabble rousing is what it's all about these days, tempo.  And sensationalism, of course.  But we're fed what we eat, and we eat what we want.  Most "news" today is McDonald's Road Kill for the brain.
    Also why our country's obsession with celebrity reality TV stars created President Trump.
    maybe its just me but I understand the obsession of reality TV.  reality TV makes every day people stars and being a star is great (atleast thats what many people believe)  you don't need to have any talent, you just need personality and many people look at that as that can be them. 

    I wonder about the distinction between a documantary and a reality show. Like the King of Kong documentary. While it was interesting, it's basically about two goobers trying to best the others high score in Donkey Kong. Or the Grey Gardens one. It's just filming two people with interesting personalities
    while I might get slammed for this, I don't see that much of a difference between many documentary and reality shows. 
    I think I get what you mean. Both can be informative, but most times it's the outrageous or over the top ones that get noticed the most, therefore prompting others to follow suit. My problem comes more from reality shows like the Kardashians and Docs that have no grounding in truth or are sensationalized. Its ok to tell a story from one point of view, but unfortunately some take that as fact. Propaganda at its best.
    I think you must be talking about a pretty specific type of documentary... Most of the documentaries I watch are historical, like about medieval days or kings and queens or old wars or ancient Egypt or 19th Century presidents and shit like that. Or Ken Burns films, etc .... I guess we're talking about stuff like that one with the guy who eats only McDonald's and whatnot? Or Michael Moore movies (which I do watch, and I think they're pretty good, but obviously they have a political purpose - they aren't presented as being unbiased at all)?
    Post edited by PJ_Soul on
    With all its sham, drudgery, and broken dreams, it is still a beautiful world. Be careful. Strive to be happy. ~ Desiderata
«1
Sign In or Register to comment.