NationStates Jolt Archive

I meant to include a poll but I forgot to choose the option.

So what do you all think of the media in the USA generally? Is it more or less honest? More or less biased (on either side)? Do yuo feel their main interest is making money or telling the truth? Both?

Discuss.

Can't you just use the thread tools to "add a poll to this thread"?

i think they are generally too involved in entertainment and other soft news.

but overall i think that you can find out what you need to know if you bother to look for it.

Do yuo feel their main interest is making money or telling the truth?

In the UK the main interest of much of the media is neither of those things; it's influence, and promoting the views of the people who own it (most newspapers here, for instance, make relatively little money even if they're popular). I wouldn't be surprised if the US was similar.

I meant to include a poll but I forgot to choose the option.

So what do you all think of the media in the USA generally? Is it more or less honest? More or less biased (on either side)? Do yuo feel their main interest is making money or telling the truth? Both?

Discuss.If you are going to make a poll, I suggest you also ask the residence of the voting people

-US
-EU
-other

jusy to add some perspective

i think they are generally too involved in entertainment and other soft news.

but overall i think that you can find out what you need to know if you bother to look for it.

I think I agree. And I think the latest JibJab-toon (http://www.jibjab.com/what_we_call_the_news) said it well :)

In the UK the main interest of much of the media is neither of those things; it's influence, and promoting the views of the people who own it (most newspapers here, for instance, make relatively little money even if they're popular). I wouldn't be surprised if the US was similar.it is similar..

take any major US NEWS corp.. the reporters/editors/anchors will show no bias in some 80% of subjects..

but in some particular items close to the Corporations/owners hearts.. they will sing the song, dance naked, and bend over.. they are whores

I know some here (NSG) work for the media, I would like them to comment.

I meant to include a poll but I forgot to choose the option.

So what do you all think of the media in the USA generally? Is it more or less honest? More or less biased (on either side)? Do yuo feel their main interest is making money or telling the truth? Both?

Discuss.The news media in the US is dominated by commercial television channels. The problem with most of these is that they've given up on reporting factual events based on relevance and importance, favoring "infotainment" in order to get higher ratings, and thus more money.

an obvious bias exists for any news outlet in accordance with the parent company's wishes. any lack of biasm is an illusion that, if against the intentions of greater influences, could easily be tarnished/manipulated/altered to appease.

USA has news media? :confused:

USA has news media? :confused:

The US had news media. *Nods*

Sounds like the consensus is one I agree with.

The mews media is concerned with gaining/retaining viewers by essentially playing to what they want to hear. I think the bias isn't so much one of liberal/conservative, but rather catering to an audience. Hot button issues get the attention first, regardless of actual relevance.

Not to mention occasions where a minor news item gets blown to epic proportions because it's a slow news day...

i think they are generally too involved in entertainment and other soft news.

but overall i think that you can find out what you need to know if you bother to look for it.

And that's because their corporate owners are looking to the news as a profit center. It wasn't always like that--news was expected to break even at best, and potentially run at a loss, but they felt it was important. Now instead of "all the news that's fit to print," it's "all the news that sells ad space."

the news media puts their opinions into the news they write and report. so much that nowdays, even the editorials on the "news stations" get mistaken for 'news'

Thank goodness for NPR...

the news media puts their opinions into the news they write and report. so much that nowdays, even the editorials on the "news stations" get mistaken for 'news'

And let's not forget the little propaganda spots produced by government agencies to look like news pieces that are then shipped out to local stations for use in their broadcasts.

Thank goodness for NPR...

Isn't it interesting that the two US outlets with the best reputation for getting facts correct and the stories correctly to their viewers are NPR and PBS's Jim Lehrer News Hour? They're the two which aren't driven by a profit motive. Curious. :p

And let's not forget the little propaganda spots produced by government agencies to look like news pieces that are then shipped out to local stations for use in their broadcasts.as well as all the propaganda spots everyone else puts out. the Government isn't the only one putting out propaganda y'know. ;)

Isn't it interesting that the two US outlets with the best reputation for getting facts correct and the stories correctly to their viewers are NPR and PBS's Jim Lehrer News Hour? They're the two which aren't driven by a profit motive. Curious. :p

I'm not familiar with Lehrer's program, but I do find NPR admirable for accuracy. If there is a mistake made in a report, it is corrected fairly quick. Or if a guest makes an erroneous claim, the hosts (9 times out of 10, anyway) will call them on it.

as well as all the propaganda spots everyone else puts out. the Government isn't the only one putting out propaganda y'know. ;)

It's one thing if a news organization produces what can reasonably be called a hit piece--they're putting their own reputation (or lack of one) on the line. And I have no problem with a government agency putting out a story as long as their name is attached to it. It's when a government department puts out a story, makes it look like your average nightly newscast feature, and doesn't identify itself as being a government piece that I have a problem with it. And I believe it's against the law to do so as well. That's sort of what got Armstrong Williams in trouble a couple of years ago.

It's my contention that media can't sell you on something you don't want in the first place. Rather, a large number of people watch these soft stories, drive up ratings, and then the media outlets give them more of it.

If people wanted to think and watched news that challenged them to come up with their own conclusions then the large media corporations would give it to them.

It's my contention that media can't sell you on something you don't want in the first place. Rather, a large number of people watch these soft stories, drive up ratings, and then the media outlets give them more of it.

If people wanted to think and watched news that challenged them to come up with their own conclusions then the large media corporations would give it to them.

But what if you've never seen anything different? I'm old enough to remember when the news was the news, and not what we see today. The problem then was that there was a limit to what could be covered because these were the days before the 24 hour news cycle, but the other extreme is what we have today, which is 24 hours of not-news. And if you're half my age, you don't know anything else, because what we have is all you've ever known. I'm not saying that consumers are blameless, but they're certainly less to blame than the providers are.

As a whole, it's honest, but simple.

I'm not saying that consumers are blameless, but they're certainly less to blame than the providers are.While I appreciate the reply, I have to disagree. The consumer, no matter how old or saturated in the media, has the choice to descent. That a number of consumers blindly accept this non-news isn't the fault of the provider.

However, I'm not sure how old you are, but I don't remember a time before twenty-four hour news. I've grown up watching this stuff and it doesn't appeal to me, so I don't watch it. One cannot force another person to exercise their ability to think critically.