Perhaps you need to frame that question more precisely. Who are the 'mainstream media'? Big corporations? Media that is printed or broadcasted as opposed to Internet based? Entertainment or news? Trust them with what? The 'truth'? Respect for privacy? Politically unbiased reporting? Not trying to garner attention and sales by letting sensationalist story get in the way of the sober facts? To understand the material that they are reporting on?
The BBC doesn't do that, and also I read the independent and the times during my lunch hour. That enables me a pretty precise version of events, however as with anything interpretation by the reporter is usually biased.
I couldn't be bothered to sit through more than a minute of that video. Generally, I don't find the media that trustworthy as there have been plenty of BBC articles in the past which have had quite poor or horrbily incorrect sources of information. Some online writers (particularly the Times, I find), are overly opinionated for my liking too. But hey, that's media. At least we haven't got a state controlled media service.
Over here the media are trustable. The only thing you can't believe is what they took from the American media so if they're talking about some kind of epidemy (bird/swine flu) it's always ********. However when it comes to local stuff they just report the news (as well as dramatize it, of course) I'm not voting however because either answer would be an extreme. Voting 'yes' means I am ready to eat anything they say. Voting 'no' means I am a paranoïd freak
While the BBC aren’t as bad as other media outlets for sensationalism (compared to red top rags,) they do fall pray to personal bias through individual journalists. The only way to get a good idea of current events, such as the current war, would be to ask the people who are involved directly.
No. About 8 months ago, we canceled our satellite service and the TV we watch is relegated to just internet streaming and netflix streaming. I read a lot more books and newspaper articles online now and I can't tell you how much more peace of mind I have without the constant crisis raining down on my daily life. I was totally unaware of the effect it had on my well being until it was removed. My conclusion was cemented when I watch my friends (who happen to be on the other side of the political aisle as me) on twitter literally tweeting the blow by blow account of their reaction to the morning MSNBC programs. Every morning, they are whipped into a frenzy of the days topics even though they vary by a wide degree from day to day. Granted, MSNBC is somewhat of a dramatic example but it is the source of much of their information. Theirs is rarely a conscientious discussion of the issues but a tornado of emotional reaction. I'm not picking on my American liberals either, there are plenty of the same symptoms on people considered on my side of the issues watching FoxNews. I also consider myself much more informed now tending to find the actual sources of stories rather than depend on 2 minutes of some "expert" spouting his biased interpretation of the facts that I can find for myself, most of the time revealing something completely contrary. I highly recommend Thomas Sowell's book "Intellectuals and Society" where he spends a great deal discussing, documenting the motives of contemporary media. Another thing I've learned is that this is nothing new. Recent books I have read of the history of 19th century America reveals a much more dramatic and unapologetic slanted press. I will say one of the virtues of the modern era is that, at least we have options where they did not.
+1 Judging from the example given, I presume that the original poster is talking about television news outlets. I tend to think that the reason television news thrives on sensationalism is because that is precisely what the viewing public wants. CNN has to compete with American Idol, and the only way they can hope to do it is by playing the same game. People love sensationalism. We love celebrity, and we can't pass up a juicy story. Combine that with a 24-hour news cycle and fluff stories that are cheap and easy to produce, therefore reducing costs and increasing the profit margin for that particular company, and you have the modern television news station.
I agree with all of the above but would note not to let print media off the hook. Your accurate account of the recipe was born in print. TV adds a 2 more dimensions: speed and moving images. Kind of like turning cocaine into crack. I laugh every time I see some newspaper journalists (usually old-schoolers) wax on about how the standards of media are being eroded when they are the mothers and fathers of the current situation. Their jealousy and bitterness of the loss of monopoly of the machine they created can not be concealed.
I really doubt that reporters are that smart or devious enough to work for some major hidden conspiracy. Yes, there obviously are pressures from the top, and advertising/viewership does play a huge role in it. And of course, there are personal biases that may leak into the writing or portrayal of news, but I'd like to think that most people go into reporting because they like to write, they like to be heard, and they feel the need to uncover the truth and the story for the public, not because they're in it for the money — if they were, reporting sure as hell isn't the best job for that. Of course, this doesn't apply to Fox News, which is more or less just ironic entertainment.
I'm not asserting that there is some grand conspiracy. Merely that people's visions shape the way the perceive the world. It is a highly individualistic phenomena that is reinforced by the fact that certain work sectors attract like-minded individuals (this happens a lot in academia as well). That environment only solidifies those visions through validation. One example of this is Dan Rather. After discovering that key documents in a story about the President of the United States were total fabrications, he still stood behind his story. That can be surely attributed to mere hubris and not concerted conspiracy. But for high-standing journalist to award him a year later for his work is an example of how hard people will ignore blatant facts that contradict their vision and helps secure their own. It is what it is.
Of course news is shaped by the packaging. I don't care much for opinions, but even Fox News will have a hard time telling a straight lie without getting in hot water with whatever governing bodies the US has against that sort of thing. Opinion and bias is almost intrinsic to reportage. Even in print. Perhaps the only way to get the most untainted news now is to just read an aggregate of stories on the same topic from various sources, and determine for yourself what you want to believe. I say believe, because can the truth really be known? Even if you were say, a participant in an event, your own disposition, biases, and prior beliefs will affect your experience of that event. Example: a car accident. The driver of one car, the other car, the onlooker, and the passengers may easily all have their own sides of the story.
I believe the truth can be known many times only after much time has passed from the original incident which is why news-on-the-fly is so dependent on people's perceptions of what is happening and, therefore, can be rife with factual errors. This is a phenomena that politicians have channeled oh so well. Short sided effects of most decisions can be positive (or perceived as positive), while long-term effects can be extremely painful. By then, people responsible for the decisions can be totally obfuscated from blame, and in the most horrible cases, exploit the negative effects as a need for more of their brilliant talents.
Unfortunately, there aren't really any governing bodies to police whether or not a media outlet is lying. There's an old journalism adage that warns never to get into an argument with an entity that buys ink by the ton. For television media, the easiest way to defend against that is the commentary show. Instead of hard investigative reporting, it's easier to put an entertainer in front of a camera and let him or her wax on about he thinks. It's not reporting facts, it's reporting what someone thinks about a current situation. Facts become irrelevant. As to your second point, opinion and bias are intrinsic to every aspect of life. It is found in even the most honest trustworthy news source. Before a reporter decides to cover a story, it has to pass his personal filters. The reporter will judge the story based on his or her prior beliefs, and (perhaps without realizing it) will cover the story as appropriate. After that, editors apply their own bias in selecting stories for print or telecast and editing the content accordingly. Even an anchor sitting behind a desk reading headlines will find it very difficult to hide personal bias behind his or her body language and tone of voice. An editor/producer might choose a particular story over another because the former touches on a childhood memory. Maybe the producer feels the latter story doesn't appeal to target demographics (the people who bring in advertising dollars). I've even seen the last few paragraphs cut from a story just so it will fit on a page. Such careless editing can fundamentally change the outlook of a story, which is why prospective journalists are taught to fill the last couple paragraphs with relatively unimportant information.
Good points Supermonkey. Don't forget in your hierarchy of how the story is disseminated, the editor does the hiring of the reporters/researchers in the first place. They are not likely to choose reporters that contradict their vision of the world they way they see it.
A little note on the CNN video (which I could not watch when I posted before because I was at work and they don't do video streaming, 'cause it's bad for network bandwidth, mmokay?): is this some conspiracy thing again?!? Of course it is not conceivable that the whole thing was actually filmed from a hotel lobby in Saudi Arabia --or maybe even a make-shift studio in one of the conference facility rooms. And who would have thunk that the "bright sun at 6.00am" might be a camera light? Or that the camera that "did not move during the air raid" was actually perched on a tripod? But it's like the moon landings: if you are convinced they are fake they look fake.
I trust things like the BBC to deliver non bias news as best they can. Im not one of these crazy conspiracy theorists thinking the world is out to get them, how can people live that way ?
I believe the stuff I read in the Times the most. I've become irritated with BBC news recently, especially on the TV, as the newsreaders put inflection on stories, and the stupid fairness policies of the BBC also get on my nerves..
I take things with a grain of salt. Mainstream media usually reports the truth with bias so just look at both sides and then evaluate yourself.
Well for the purposes of simplicity I mean all media be it print,tv,new media,publishing,etc that is controlled by government or corporations.
