In that case the answer's no, the licence fee I pay the BBC is worth it for entertainment but the Beeb rather than having any conspiracy, is just plain patronising to its viewers with news, with the exception of the original radio services. So now with the net out there you can find news on anything, but you have to be your own filter rather than having the big corp do it for you. @ Supermonkey - excellent post but I think times are changing ever so slightly, comparing say the treatment of Colin Stagg to the guy they accused of kidnapping Madeline McCann 15-18 years later as crime always sells and the UK press basically helped the police frame Stagg as we now know. The younger man won damages much more quickly for libelling the person concerned and he didn't even live in the UK. Even with 24hr turnover of modern news media, those that are slow to correct when they can print the error at the touch of a button still get found out and in big cities like London when this wrong info is given away free rather than paid for, there isn't enough ad revenue in the world to justify the backlash. @ eddie_dane - spot on re envy from old hacks, I can't speak for the American press but when the Daily Mail's editor is paid GBP 3.2million, they have lost all moral authority to criticise anyone else's salary including expenses-fiddling politicians - but they will, because that's what the readership wants and because it fits their envy at that level of job security. Going back to the start where the rot set in, UK journalists have a union that's more interested in raking fees from syndicated courses -no NUJ qualification, no print job, the regional work-your-way-up route has nearly died out and they've done nothing. So the wages are terrible, that's for those lucky enough to make it, and in that environment making the time to get a story right is probably one of the first things to go out of the window.
For the most part the media are businesses, they exist to make money. They produce what will sell. Seems to me that their motive is to entertain as well as inform which can all too easily lead to pandering to the masses. Often now I can't help but start looking for supporting information when reading news articles, especially when statistics are involved. It has gotten to the point where I rarely believe anything I hear or read in the media, entertaining as it may be. For instance, if a public survey is being quoted I expect to know things like sample size, how participants were selected, how was it conducted etc. Without this the article loses nearly all meaning to me. Media literacy is something which does not get covered enough in schools imo.
So, your version of "media" is basically any group that pushes out information about what is around us, and may or may not make some form of monetary gain from such activities? Are you comfy in that little bubble? Or has the oxygen ran a bit low since you started hyper-ventilating?
Cool, someone other than me voted "What the hell do you mean?". Highfive! The whole premise of what is or is not mainstream, and whether it's more or less biased than niche media sources is convoluted to say the least. Really if you want news that's just information on which to base decisions then you should read the Financial Times. That's what the NWO reads, you should get off MTV and onto that badboy. But really all media is about ignoring all the static that comprises 99.99% of all news, finding a story that genuinely interests you, and then researching it on as many conflicting sources as possible. Then you can make an informed decision and go back to using your tinfoil to cook chickens in.
I think that it's important to define what you mean by 'Mainstream Media'. For example, Fox News in America ran a massive campaign about how the 'Mainstream Media' didn't report on a protest. If you're basing your judgements and opinions on American media, you're probably going to get a lot of bias. Disregarding all conspiracy theories, almost every outlet has massive factual inaccuracies, in many cases because the author simply wants to smear a political figure. In the UK, we're much better (apart from the Daily Mail), there's much less bias and facts are at least reported on objectively. There's some opinion, but we don't get the same sort of hysteria that you see in the American Media. I trust the BBC, there's some opinion but that tends to be limited to the blogs, and most of the current affairs articles give a good explanation of what's going on. Furthermore, because the BBC is non-partisan, it doesn't support any side in any conflict, merely reporting what happens, which is much better than the crap you see in most newspapers.
issue i have is the mainstream media now is rubbish and inaccurate most of the time. in the 50's news reporters etc told facts about whats going on in the UK and rest of the world and left you to formulate an opinion on the current events usually with disccusion with family and friends. now its completely the opposite we get opinions on events from average job bloggs down the street and then the news report them as facts and tells us how we should feel about it.
I said 'maybe' because I regard any information I receive second-hand, ever, with caution. I look for sources and third party confirmation and I bear in mind individual agendas and biases. Every source, from The Sun to The Observer, from Fox News to the BBC, can be useful if you understand who they are and how they work and don't rely on them exclusively.
Do i trust media? answer: somewhat, depending on the sources* *i don't take any one source as gospel, i look at several and also other non-commercial news sources on the internet to give a likely more fact based view** **from doing this, i find American media is mostly horrific, going as far as outright lies when you get to Fox @ co The BBC is generally really good, but even they do questionable stories sometime. In short, don't trust one source and also engage brain
I had this forwarded in my box today.. should be good for some roid rage it all depends on the media.. you can't be everywhere at once..and journalists usually only get the story half right and fill in the rest http://www.shoebat.com/videos/CBNreport.php
This. The times is the only paper I will buy, I used to get the Independent but their editorials got on my nerves, still a good paper though. Is a shame times-online is subscription only now, one day I'll get around to subscribing. Little things bug me about the BBC, like their radio news recap stating: "Cameron wants UK troops out by 2015", seemed to be slightly out of context. When he was asked if he would like them out before the next election, he just said something along the lines of "yes of course I would 'like' them out by then, but I'm not committing to a time scale at this time".
Surely people should ultimately be responsible for whether they are misinformed or not by the media themselves. I took an Information Studies module at uni last year, and we dealt with misinformation. If people are prepared to accept one or two sources of information as being correct, without critically evaluating the information, then the fault lies with them as much as the author. The module made me consider how I approach news stories, and I do take the time to apply critical thought to the information presented by all forms of media, on stories that take my interest. Whereas before, I may just have accepted the one or two sources as the complete and definitive story. The media feeds the demand that the public creates. We can't condemn them for this, as we are the ones creating the demand. Everyone wants to hear the latest shocker, and every news media outlet is fighting for the scoop. It's just a sign of the times in my opinion.
Might I offer Noam Chomsky's excellent "Manufactured Consent", available at all good bookstores and as a lecture series and tv program on youtube
I mostly agree with you stuartpb but would like to point out two things: The fact is that a majority of people don't seek multiple sources nor apply an adequate amount of critical thinking. I'm not condemning them, just making an observation. I think it is safe to say that most people who regularly post/read this section of the forum are in the minority in that regard. Wanting to discuss serious topics and current events tends to draw informed people together. Journalism is supposed to be unique in regard to responsibility in speaking the truth. Its stated intent is to chronicle the history of human events in the contemporary. But I think your observation that people don't bother to check or analyze the information does allow an erosion of those standards. If no one notices how lack you are in your facts, where is the accountability? In a sense, what is supposed to be fact becomes fiction and a majority of people don't even notice the difference, or worse, even care. What I can't tolerate is when the press systematically violates the trust of the journalistic standard and when they get busted try to go hide behind the same wall they have been shooting holes in for nearly their entire careers. Or in my earlier example of Dan Rather, his colleagues circle the wagons around him in an effort to hide the rotten apple instead of tossing it out. I can. It seems a bit like a chicken-and-egg argument. No doubt that the saying "if it bleeds it leads" has some truth to it. But in today's world with an amazing amount of outlets, where you can have a TMZ covering the latest on Brittany Spears and Linsey Lohan, there should be plenty of room for a sobering source of real information instead of the hybridization of news/entertainment. I don't hold a TMZ, People, National Enquirer etc at any journalistic standard, it's entertainment. When trusted news organizations practice the same behaviors only using different topics (politics and current events instead of gossip) the are no different even though they claim passionately that they are and they constantly condemn entertainment-based media outlets. History has proven that if you provide a quality product, people will find you. If you start to struggle, you can either find other ways to deliver your product to the consumer or change your standards (or sometimes both). Typically, the latter leads to either the end of your business or a successful one that ends up nothing like the original intended idea.
Dude111, where have you gone? You post something like that which is blatantly as unbalanced as the media you attack with it. Personally, I believe that there is more going on in the world, than meets the eye. In a number of ways. But I can't prove it. I don't go around saying to people, "Look the mainstream media are evil, they're trying to brainwash us!!" Even if I felt that was "true" (which maybe I do sometimes), that's not an effective way to create effective and interesting dialogue around the situation. You are fortunate that a number of posters in this thread have been able to discuss issues without raging at you or each other, but that is incredibly unusual for the internet. In answer to your question, no I do not trust the mainstream media. But then - I don't watch/listen to/read the mainstream media any more.... As for this: I'd question that. Look at G20....
Thanks! But I'm not wise, I just try to remember that absolutely everyone's experience is subjective. What's "true" for me, may not be "true" for you. Of course, a lot of people don't like to see it like that, but that's because we're all individuals Eddie, you're right. A good discussion and there's plenty more to talk about. I just think it's a shame when people come across like that. 9 times out of 10, it leads to people labelling them as "conspiracy nuts" or similar and then the actual conversational topic is lost. I'm not really interested in that approach. An old saying is, "Believe only what you, yourself have tested and judged to be true."
I thought you had reached the same conclusion I had, or were on your way of reaching the same conclusion. but you're welcome okenobi.
Im sorry guys,i hope i didnt make anyone angry by this thread.... I know alot that dont trust MSM (Me being one of them)
