I was thinking about this as I was reading the post on the economy. The economy is bad, but it looks even worse to the consumer because of the media constantly blurting out how bad it is. Then I started thinking it's that way with a lot of things. The media sucks. They warp things, they magnify and forget a lot of stuff.

Last year we had an incident with a kid at the school I work for. I was quoted with a comment..and it was NOTHING at all like I said. It didn't really matter to me because it wasn't anything bad...but it made me realize how stupid it can be.

Just like the MRSA scare last year. That stuff has been around since the 60's. It's been everywhere for years. I couldn't get over the panic I was seeing as teachers were escorting students to my office to get check to see if they had the dreadful mersa... You ask any real physician about it, and they'll tell you it's the tip of the iceberg.

So what's the solution to it? One media potentially. If you didn't have 10 people competing for ratings the news might just stay as pure fact..what it's supposed to be. But there are a lot of problems to 1 media. So what's the solution?

You're joking right? Until there was a Fox News, it was all left wing media....it's still a 5-1 ratio but at least there is another side to the story.

Having one media would be akin to brainwashing. They'll only tell you what THEY think you should hear.

mrgto wrote:You're joking right? Until there was a Fox News, it was all left wing media....it's still a 5-1 ratio but at least there is another side to the story.

Having one media would be akin to brainwashing. They'll only tell you what THEY think you should hear.

Well yeah, duh it'd be bad to have 1 media source. But what's the solution.

Well, the media is supposed to be in theory one. They were meant to be the 4th pillar of government to help inform the people of what their govt. is doing. Unfortuantely in recent(40ish years) times there has been a split.

For example, Fox news yesterday covered the story about Vivek Kundra. Only problem was they didn't report all the info, but at least they reported on it and it was on the front page.

http://www.foxnews.com/politics/first100days/2009/03/12/obamas-pick-information-officer-raided-fbi/


Now MSNBC which is clearly a left wing news didn't report on it at all yesterday. They waited until today, and tucked it away. Funny how that works. Instead, Michael Phelps, Joaquin Phoenix and Al Capone's grandson are apparently more important to be on the front page.

Its not important how many media outlets there are, its important that they do their JOB and don't worry about the implications.

Perfect example is
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=5&i=699505&t=699505

John Stewart isn't even recognized as a media news outlet more of political satire but he has done more in one week with his attack on CNBC and Cramer then the entire MSM did for the past three years.

The truth is people care more about Brittney, Bradjolina or octamom then important issues.

That is why i love the alternative media, blogs, online news, wire feeds etc.

Your right that they pander for viewership and money now more then anything instead of being proactive but as Jim Crammer said in his interview "there's a market for it". There are people like us who want more but instead we get crap- its the industry, I think we need more shows like the Daily Show who aren't afraid to get dirty.

mclonedogmcwad wrote:Its not important how many media outlets there are, its important that they do their JOB and don't worry about the implications.

Perfect example is
http://www.j-body.org/forums/read.php?f=5&i=699505&t=699505

John Stewart isn't even recognized as a media news outlet more of political satire but he has done more in one week with his attack on CNBC and Cramer then the entire MSM did for the past three years.

The truth is people care more about Brittney, Bradjolina or octamom then important issues.

That is why i love the alternative media, blogs, online news, wire feeds etc.

Your right that they pander for viewership and money now more then anything instead of being proactive but as Jim Crammer said in his interview "there's a market for it". There are people like us who want more but instead we get crap- its the industry, I think we need more shows like the Daily Show who aren't afraid to get dirty.

I agree with most of this, but I certainly wouldn't look to John Stewart for my news updates. Colbert and Stewart, while comical, are not actual news shows. Then again, not many are anymore.

Drudge Report (yes, leans a little right, I know) and Breitbart are the ones I pay most attention to.


Desert Tuners

“When you come across a big kettle of crazy, it’s best not to stir it.”

J03Y wrote:
I agree with most of this, but I certainly wouldn't look to John Stewart for my news updates. Colbert and Stewart, while comical, are not actual news shows. Then again, not many are anymore.

I completely agree and I am not saying that I view them for my news updates. They themselves have stated that, my only wish is the actual news and MSM do some of the reporting and investigating and digging that they do.
This whole CNBC and Crammer thing really struck a nerve with a lot of people and its that kind of action that should bring more issues into the limelight. Yes Daily Show is entertainment and I view it as such but sometimes they do a hell of job being on the edge of actual reporting and putting the squeeze on things like nobody else does.

^^^word, at least you can tell the difference. There are alot of people out there that really consider those shows(Stewart, Colbert) actual news. Like they get all their news info via those 2. Sad.

If you want FAIR reporting about the States. BBC is there.

One media source.... U.S.S.R?

Nazi Germany?


No, bad idea.


Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

unfortunately there isnt much we can do about the media right now. what we have now is immensely better than having only 1 source, but its still far from perfect. the problem is that the media is a for-profit institution so they will always pander to advertisers and politicians. but you cant have a fully free paper either because then it has no repercussions to keep them in check (look at bloggers). however, in the end, the more sources you have the better off youll be because youll be able to piece together the through all of their half lies and deceptions.

The BBC fair? Depends on the story I suppose. If you have questions about "One Media", you should write to the Peoples Republic of China, or fire off an email to Hugo Chavez. I'm sure he's full of ideas on that topic.

If O.B.ama mentions that he likes french toast and coffee for breakfast, MSNBC and co. will report it with the same gusto as Phelps gold medal record in Beijing. However, if one of O.B.ama's newly chosen flunkies are arrested, charged with tax evasion or the like, it'll be a 4th page quip right under the "national news" bylines.

ps. Piss off

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

ScottaWhite wrote:If O.B.ama mentions that he likes french toast and coffee for breakfast, MSNBC and co. will report it with the same gusto as Phelps gold medal record in Beijing. However, if one of O.B.ama's newly chosen flunkies are arrested, charged with tax evasion or the like, it'll be a 4th page quip right under the "national news" bylines.

Truth. The majority of the media right now is in the pocket of the administration and the rest of the leading liberal extremists. I'm curious when they are going to wake up and realize that their companies are part of the vilified Corporate America. They are helping to support those who will ultimately ruin their company.

Obama and crew are already trying to squeeze out the opposing media via their new version of the Fairness Doctrine. They want to control what we hear, and right now are getting away with a lot of it. Wait until they decide the Freedom of Information Act is somehow a security threat, and try to wipe that away.

From what I've heard, "The Fairness Doctrine" would not remove conservative talk-show hosts from the air. The station would be forced (by the government) to tell the other side of the issue...the government version. This is indeed a limit on free speech. If I wan't to go on the air and report that the earth is actually shaped like a pineapple with tits, then as long as my sponsors keep the money flowing, my listeners will hear about big-titty earth.


and piss off.
.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

You're exactly correct on the Fairness Doctrine being about both sides being heard, but in effect, it ends up killing the radio stations, because they force programming that is unpopular. It is a simple fact that in the free market, if people wanted liberal talk radio, it would be on the air, because advertisers would be paying for the time, since it has such a large audience. However, liberal (or "progressive" as they like to call it), talk radio continues to fail. Forcing the equal time would mean that radio stations would have two choices: try to continue, losing successful shows in place of the shows that "balance" the view points, which would end up in massive lost revenue, and ultimately some stations going under, or drop the very popular shows in favor of neutral or non-political shows. In effect, either way would cause conservative radio to lose airplay.

The newest version they are trying to get through is called "Diversity in Ownership", which is essentially affermative action for ownership of radio stations. In other words, they want to take airwaves away from some people and give them to minorites. Again, trying to force the market. On two levels it's bullsh!t, but the obvious one is that it's just another way to try and squash the voice of conservative radio.

So, what we'll do then is push legislation through, get O.B.ama to sign it, the wait for the Supreme Court to vote 5-4 that it is unconstitutional.

.


“Poor Al Gore. Global warming completely debunked via the very Internet you invented. Oh, oh, the irony!” -Jon Stewart

I think:
if there was only 1 media anyone with a different POV would get cutoff the air real quick

Call the sean hannity show and tell him you're a democrat, see how long you're going to last on the air 0.05 sec
Call CNN and tell them you're a republican and see how long you would last, about the same. 0.05 sec

Right now we have too much media/ political wars. And some are very extreme and radical.

So, lets fight it out, like a good ol fist fight.

wonder who would win....



Chris




"An appeal to arms and the God of hosts is all that is left us. But we shall not fight our battle alone. There is a just God that presides over the destinies of nations. The battle sir, is not of the strong alone. Is life so dear or peace so sweet as to be purchased at the price of chains and slavery? Forbid it almighty God. I know not what course others may take, but as for me, give me liberty, or give me death."

Speech at the Second Virginia Convention at St. John's Church in Richmond, Virginia (23 March 1775) Patrick Henry

spoiler wrote:Call the sean hannity show and tell him you're a democrat, see how long you're going to last on the air 0.05 sec
Call CNN and tell them you're a republican and see how long you would last, about the same. 0.05 sec.

LOL.

I rarely listen to Hannity, but when I have listened to him, I have heard liberals call him, and he gives them a chance if they are reasonable. However, when I have heard him hang up on people, it has been because they start with the typical liberal arguing technique: they just start talking louder and don't let you respond.

This is exactly what would happen to a conservative on CNN. It is also why I want to punch Chris Matthews every time I hear or see him. He is the epitome of the loud mouth type, and you can not argue that this is not a common liberal tactic. Somehow the are those who think being louder, and not letting the other person speak, makes you right. In reality, it simply shows that your points have no merrit. If you have to yell to make a point, you have a weak argument.

Quiklilcav wrote:

spoiler wrote:Call the sean hannity show and tell him you're a democrat, see how long you're going to last on the air 0.05 sec
Call CNN and tell them you're a republican and see how long you would last, about the same. 0.05 sec.

LOL.

I rarely listen to Hannity, but when I have listened to him, I have heard liberals call him, and he gives them a chance if they are reasonable. However, when I have heard him hang up on people, it has been because they start with the typical liberal arguing technique: they just start talking louder and don't let you respond.

This is exactly what would happen to a conservative on CNN. It is also why I want to punch Chris Matthews every time I hear or see him. He is the epitome of the loud mouth type, and you can not argue that this is not a common liberal tactic. Somehow the are those who think being louder, and not letting the other person speak, makes you right. In reality, it simply shows that your points have no merrit. If you have to yell to make a point, you have a weak argument.

I think is because time is limited and they both want to make their points real quick before time runs out and who ever is running the shows has the advantage to say the last word lol

spoiler wrote:

Quiklilcav wrote:

spoiler wrote:Call the sean hannity show and tell him you're a democrat, see how long you're going to last on the air 0.05 sec
Call CNN and tell them you're a republican and see how long you would last, about the same. 0.05 sec.

LOL.

I rarely listen to Hannity, but when I have listened to him, I have heard liberals call him, and he gives them a chance if they are reasonable. However, when I have heard him hang up on people, it has been because they start with the typical liberal arguing technique: they just start talking louder and don't let you respond.

This is exactly what would happen to a conservative on CNN. It is also why I want to punch Chris Matthews every time I hear or see him. He is the epitome of the loud mouth type, and you can not argue that this is not a common liberal tactic. Somehow the are those who think being louder, and not letting the other person speak, makes you right. In reality, it simply shows that your points have no merrit. If you have to yell to make a point, you have a weak argument.

I think is because time is limited and they both want to make their points real quick before time runs out and who ever is running the shows has the advantage to say the last word lol

I wish I could live in whatever fantasy worls you live in....it sounds really nice.

J03Y wrote:I wish I could live in whatever fantasy worls you live in....it sounds really nice.

so what exactly sounds "really nice."