The Corporate News Media: Not in the Business of News (Full Version)

All Forums >> [Community Discussions] >> Dungeon of Political and Religious Discussion



Message


Brain -> The Corporate News Media: Not in the Business of News (1/31/2010 9:34:02 PM)


I watch PBS for 60% of my news, MSNBC 20%, the rest 20% combined; corporate news sucks.

The Corporate News Media: Not in the Business of News

The late New York University media scholar Neil Postman once said about America, “We are the best entertained least informed society in the world.” That was twenty-five years ago and after two-plus decades of more deregulation and the growth of conglomerates in the media, that trend has continued. From Tyra Banks’ shifting figure and the Balloon Boy hoax, to the celebrity death of Michael Jackson and the Obama Beer Summit, Americans are fed a steady “news” diet of tabloidized, trivialized, and outright useless information laden with personal anecdotes, scandals, and gossip.

Topics and in-depth reports that matter little to most people in any meaningful way are given massive amounts of attention in the corporate media. In recent years, this has only become more obvious. For instance, CNN’s coverage of celebrity Anna Nicole Smith’s untimely death in early 2007 is arguably one of the most egregious examples of an over abused news story. The magnitude of corporate media attention paid to Smith’s death were clearly out of synch with the coverage the story deserved, which was at most a simple passing mention. Instead, CNN broadcast “breaking” stories of Smith’s death uninterrupted, without commercials, for almost two hours, with commentary by lead anchors and journalists. This marked among the longest uninterrupted “news” broadcasts at CNN since the tragic events of September 11, 2001. Anna Nicole Smith and 9/11 are now strange bedfellows, milestone bookends of a deranged corporate news culture.1

Truth Emergency: Keeping the Facts at Bay

The truth comes as conqueror only because we have lost the art of receiving it as guest.
– Rabindranath Tagore

What are some of these truths, that not knowing them creates a literal state of emergency for human society? Here are two of many possible examples. A 2008 report from The World Bank admitted that in 2005, over three billion people lived on less than $2.50 a day and about forty-four percent of these people survive on less than $1.25. Complete and total wretchedness can be the only description for the circumstances faced by so many, especially those in urban areas of so-called developing nations. Simple items Americans take for granted like phone calls, nutritious food, vacations, television, dental care, and inoculations are beyond the possible for billions of people.6

In another ignored but related story, Starvation.net logged the increasing impacts of world hunger and starvation. Over 30,000 people a day (eighty-five percent of children under five) die of malnutrition, curable diseases, and starvation. The number of deaths has exceeded three hundred million people over the past forty years. These stories should be alarming headlines, certainly more significant than celebrity tripe and tabloid hype.7

http://dissidentvoice.org/2010/01/media-democracy-in-action-the-importance-of-including-truth-emergency-inside-the-progressive-media-reform-movement/




Termyn8or -> RE: The Corporate News Media: Not in the Business of News (1/31/2010 11:21:17 PM)

That's not the half of it. They sit down with a shitload of stories, many from API or UPI whatever, and figure out the roster. They decide not only what to air, but how and when and in what order. So we get something like this :

New leash law in the park.
Our city water rated among the best in the state.
Man jailed for not having lids on garbage cans.
Russia Bombs China and declares war.
Where to get a good hairdo.
After the break, the latest school closings.

Cut to a commercial with a girl in a bikini, perhaps a hair wax ad, and nobody will ever know that WW3 just started.

You think I'm kidding ? Those who do this study it, they have lectures, discussion groups and fora. They forever advance their cause. It is innocuously named "marketing". We all do it. Why did I put that paragraph there and this one here ? This is a component of marketing, manipulation and effective argument or discussion. But when you you get really good at it and use for purposes that are, ummm say, absolutely cannot be mistaken for altruistic, IMO at that point you are doing wrong.

They are.

T




subfever -> RE: The Corporate News Media: Not in the Business of News (2/1/2010 10:06:51 PM)

Why should the corporate news media's agenda be anything other than maintaining the status quo?

If the sheeple are stupid enough to eat it, the corporatocracy will remain smart enough to spoon-fed them.




Termyn8or -> RE: The Corporate News Media: Not in the Business of News (2/1/2010 11:31:28 PM)

sub, that is the thing. We don't need to sweat and moan to fix the world's problems. All we have to do is to understand the moivation(s) of other(s). People all act in their own best interest, even the most altruistic among us. We must, because there is always number one. If number one is to take care of number two, number one must be capable of doing so. Therefore number two can never be placed ahead in importance to number one.

Why do you go to work ? To make money of course. I'm sure we would all like to chat on CM all day, download old movies and play tunes, burn one and drink all the time. Get laid and just do whatever we want all the time. Some people can but we must work. We sell our time for the most part and are therefore part of the proletariat(sp).

Well they are in business, and like in any business you have big good customers whom you try to take care of, in a special way whenever possible. Just for you Mr. ________. Who, equipped with a work ethic at all, would not ? You do it for yourself, for your boss, for your future.

Well media gets most of their revenue from big money. Where do you think their loyalty lies. In fact where do you think it SHOULD lie ? I would say that with a rsponsibility to shareholders and employees, those big customers should be accomodated as well as possible wouldn't you ?

To see the really big picture, one must be able not only to listen to the opposing viewpoint, but to understand it and embrace it, even expound on it. Putting yourself in the other guy's shoes, at least in your mind. If someone who can be reasoned with and used somehow this is precious. It allows you to either ally yourself with someone from a different planet or something, and if not will give you insight on the next move, if he is indeed a foe.

But in this world foes are more easily identified than friends.

T




Page: [1]

Valid CSS!




Collarchat.com © 2025
Terms of Service Privacy Policy Spam Policy
0.046875