Media Coverage.
Legionnaired
Join Date: 2002-04-30 Member: 552Members, Constellation
in Discussions
<div class="IPBDescription">Is it objective any more?</div> With scenes from the war in Iraq rolling in, and interviews with real soldiers commonplace, one has to wether if the same media giants that compete for ratings are giving us the objective coverage entitled to us by our first amendment rights. It is quite feasable to argue that media has become a corporation structure, rather than a civil service.
Do you think that American (or your countries) media is objective, neuteral, and giving us the clear view we need?
And secondly, if not, then what could be done to revitalize the system with which we are informed of events beyond our borders?
Discuss.
Do you think that American (or your countries) media is objective, neuteral, and giving us the clear view we need?
And secondly, if not, then what could be done to revitalize the system with which we are informed of events beyond our borders?
Discuss.
Comments
I think you cant make it objective just say what your side your on and have like somebody else from the other side say stuff.
I mean report stuff <!--emo&???--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/confused.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='confused.gif'><!--endemo-->
Say the owner of a newspaper (assume its a sole propriatership for simplicity) is a very strong viewed Republican, well then he'll want his paper to have storys painting a Democrat candidate for whatever in a not-as-good light. Not saying that its competely fabricated and not factual, but the way the story is interpreted is geared to give the reader/viewer a certain perspective. For example, the local newspaper here in Oklahoma, The Oklahoman, is very heavily biased. It doesn't stop with the newspaper though, it is like this with all forms of media, from magazines to news broadcasts.
This is completely legal. The first amendment says:<!--QuoteBegin--></span><table border='0' align='center' width='95%' cellpadding='3' cellspacing='1'><tr><td><b>QUOTE</b> </td></tr><tr><td id='QUOTE'><!--QuoteEBegin-->Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the government for a redress of grievances.<!--QuoteEnd--></td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'><!--QuoteEEnd-->
This says that the goverment cannot tell you what to say in your news broadcast. It says nothing about what the people who run the news broadcast not being able to report things from their own viewpoint in the hopes of persuading others.
I'm certain there would be an outrage here in Germany if independent journalists suppressed information because a government official told them to. They certainly don't hesitate to show the Iraqi POWs.
I'm quite pleased with the coverage of our media here. This might surprise you, but the most objective coverage is usually done by the two public stations we have here. They are financed with a kind of state tax on all TVs and radios and usually have the highest quality of journalism, so their news <i>are</i> a kind of public service. Some call them dry, but when I turn on CNN, the only American station I can receive, I'm happy we have this service. In my opinion showing US aircraft carriers under the caption "Standoff in Iraq" while playing dramatic music is not a good way to report about a war.
These "embedded" journalists trouble me. On the one hand, they're really the closest coverage possible. It's hard to imagine how soldiers could commit atrocities when they have a camera behind them. On the other hand, it makes the horror of war look like a damn video game, with anonymous buildings exploding. War is about killing people, not blowing up buildings, but all the unpleasant pictures apparently get filtered by the propaganda machinery.
But I bet (hope?) that you have great local and independent sources too which show the other side of truth. It's just unfortunate that the two major stations paint these Orwellian pictures. I'm afraid Fox and CNN are a major reason why the war is so popular in the USA.
Advertisers are not happy with controversial topics - indeed the current war itself has led to an advertising slump both in the UK and the US. Michael Moore wrote in one of his books about the problems he was having with arguments over the network about the content of one of his TV series. The problem wasn't so much that the network itself had a problem with the content - it was the advertisers who would be paying for slots during that programme. The networks had to try to play it safe to satisfy their advertisers. His last two series have had to be produced by UK television companies (the BBC and Channel 4). You end up with a sort of media meekness, which gets even worse in the current US climate, where a US news programme wouldn't want to be accused of being unpatriotic.
And as for the owners of the media, they have their own definite agenda. Many outlets are headed up by powerful figures, who enjoy moving in the heady political and social elite. It would not be in their interest to have a strong independent media tackling authority figures - who knows when their turn might come around? And obviously, anyone who owns a newspaper or TV network is likely to be rather right-wing; they're extremely rich and would probably be not keen on actually having to pay significant amounts of tax. It's not as if <i>they</i> need any public services.
Newspapers seem to fare better on the serious investigative journalism because they're less reliant on advertising than the networks, although again there can be seen to be a clear distinction in the UK between the Murdoch-owned (all strongly pro-war/Bush) and the independent (largely anti-war/Bush) newspapers; I'm not sure whether this carries over to the US.
Here in the western world we don't have governmental censorship, we just have a sort of self-interested agenda persuance by the large corporations. It's far more subtle, but arguably more dangerous because of that. I mean, in Iraq, everyone knows exactly where the state television is coming from and how much credence to give it. It is almost childishly unsophisticated. But does the average American know who owns Fox?
The UK seems to me to be somewhat better served than the US in terms of major TV networks. The BBC (publically funded by the TV license) and Channel 4 (a tightly regulated commercial broadcaster) both seem to have strong and independent news teams; actually Channel 4 has arguably the best primetime news program - 55 minutes at 7pm, frequently with 20 minutes devoted to indepth investigation of some underreported issue. The Murdoch-run news agenda only appears on Sky One & Sky News, minority digital channels. I've not been impressed by the news coverage I've seen on American stations like MSNBC, CNN or Fox. Presumably there are some better channels (people keep mentioning PBS, which I've never seen), but are they at all mainstream?
The blurring between companies and government, although very strong in the current US republican administration, whose members are quite unashamedly persuing the interests of their corporate backers, has reached its pinnacle in the current Italian government, where <a href='http://www.guardian.co.uk/italy/story/0,12576,824146,00.html' target='_blank'>Silvio Berlusconi</a>, a somewhat shady multi-billionaire businessman who owns most of the major Italian TV stations, has ended up as Prime Minister. A disturbing trend. Almost as disturbing as how chummy Mr Blair is with him. <!--emo&:(--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/sad.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='sad.gif'><!--endemo-->
If the trend carries on, we will end up going full circle, and the government and the corporations will increasingly merge. Rather than the Stalinist vision of the state controlling the means of production, the means of production will end up controlling the state. The effective difference as far as the citizen is concerned seems to be minimal; either way seems to end up with the system being run for the benefits of those in charge.
I didnt belive this was true till i was 11
Correct. There is no such thing as unbiased news coverage, because coverage is not prvided by emotionless robots without bias or outside influences. There are some that get a lot closer than others to 'less-biased', but in the end, there are humans invloved and all have a conscious or unconscious axe to grind. That's just the nature of people, and to believe otherwise is to be hopelessly naive. I have yet to see any rah-rah reporting by anyone, to be honest, even from the more soundbitey MTV generation stations like CNN (I refuse to watch FOX/SKY, as rupert murdoch is the devil - thanks a ton for passing that shytebird off onto the world, australia <!--emo&:p--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/tounge.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='tounge.gif'><!--endemo--> )
There is certainly much more immediate and personal coverage of the war than has perhaps ever been, thanks to the embedded journalist system. I would imagine that most people (even those oppsed to the war) would agree that they are a good thing to have for beforementioned reasons.
And I don't know how I can watch footage from David Bloom of Marines (from my old unit, mind you) tossing javelin missiles and 50 cal fire into a building and watching it explode, then seeing surrending republican guard irregulars as somehow being a 'video game' war. It's just footage of small unit combat, and certainly not clean or particulary edited, especially considering it was live the first time I saw it. Maybe you're referring to 'gun-camera' footage, but that has been pretty absent this go around due to the GPS weapons replacing laser-guided in so much of the fighting...
<a href='http://www.reason.com/hod/tc032403.shtml' target='_blank'>http://www.reason.com/hod/tc032403.shtml</a>
They all have the impression that the "uninformed masses" are sitting in their lazyboys with drool spilling off their bottom lips waiting for the all knowing "journalists" to tell them to wipe their chins. So the "Arabs" are - first to the scene! - whoopdi fricken do. I'll put that on the shelf right next to the latest California car chase I get to watch during my lunch. "Sex Sells" as they say. What he should really be looking for is CONTENT. The media has a responsibility to give us ACCURATE information, which requires investigation, which requires time.
I like the idea of having reporters in the field, but I want them there to record, not exploit. I don't need to see a pocket-sized version of the war between commercials.
With that said, I have to say that I'm finding this coverage absolutely amazing and fascinating. I think I've made my views on the issue pretty clear in other threads, but the bottom line is I do think it's terrible that it has come to this situation. Since we are in this situation, though, I want to know what's happening. That first video phone footage of the seventh cavalry rolling unopposed across the southern Iraqi desert a few nights back... incredibly surreal. They passed an abandoned and inoperative tank from the first gulf war - an old T-72 half-buried in windblown sand. I seriously couldn't drag myself away from the TV that night.
Whether we like it or not, I do see this as the future of war coverage (though ideally there'd be no use for it... :-\ ). Remember the nighttime battle from Starship Troopers?
Also, those of you talking about commercial motives... I don't know about other networks, but as far as I've seen up to yesterday (haven't watched any TV since), CNN's coverage has been almost 100% ad-free.
Yep, advertisers don't like being in this sort of programming, so they're withdrawing their ads. Kind of ironic for the news broadcasters - they're getting higher viewing figures, but it's costing them quite a bit more money to report, and they're getting far less money in.
So in the end they're just doing it for the "prestige", really; they can't afford to put up a bad showing, and if they secure viewers now, hopefully they'll be able to keep them. They also want to be able to boast good viewing figures to the advertisers, when they come back. But in the meantime, they might run up something of a defecit.
But while they're temporarily free of direct commercial pressure, they come under more direct governmental and military pressure (and indeed general public pressure to cheer on the troops).
So, I couldn't say just objective, etcetera.
Except for Ted Koppel. ^_^
the lack of ethics and morals in America has become shockingly distrubing
the top to publications in the US are
Tv Guide
and
the National Inquirer (tabloid)
that speaks volumes about the US and it's media
(and if you want a source for that it was Mrs. Hauber my public speaking teacher who has PHD in speech, etc etc, she is reliable)
Except for Ted Koppel. ^_^ <!--QuoteEnd--> </td></tr></table><span class='postcolor'> <!--QuoteEEnd-->
it's funny becuase it's true
<!--emo&:D--><img src='http://www.unknownworlds.com/forums/html/emoticons/biggrin.gif' border='0' style='vertical-align:middle' alt='biggrin.gif'><!--endemo-->