Discussion in 'Current Affairs, News and Analysis' started by KGB_resident, Feb 6, 2006.
The heart of the site is the forum area, including:
Could that be because of something called technology????
ICT has revolutionised the media industry meaning a steady decline in the number of people needed to produce it. Remember when it took a day to get a stroy to press (and it had to go through 4-5 people to get there). Now it takes 30 mins and only needs to go through 2 people, reporter and the ed. Don't let that stop your bitching though Mr Dickey.
I suspect a lot of it has to do with the huge disconnect between the agenda-driven 'news' traditional media presents compared with what people actually involved in situations are saying in blogs.
It also has to do, I suspect, with the current regrettable froideur between France and the US......could the Newsweek staff budget justify 25 guys and gals living it up in gay Paree....when nobody in Lynchburg, Tenn wants to read about ANYTHING to do with France or the French ?.....apart from smartass jokes by Jay 'The Jaw' Leno of course.
(Funny thing.....Reagan's Ambassador to the UN, Jeanne Kirkpatrick, was imported from Harvard to fill that post....probably the most intellectually gifted person in the Adminstration......her area of study ? ..... French History....)
Exactly right in my view.
The word is getting around that the leading USA newspapers, news magazines, and television networks have little to offer besides depraved "entertainment" and government propaganda.
The US media is over 80% anti-Bush and has an obvious bias. As a result they are losing readers/viewers and with it advertising. Without advertising dollars the news organizations have to cut staff.
The US media have long since ceased to be news corporations - especially the TV networks
They moved over to 'news you can use' - local stuff and limited national coverage dumbed down for the 'average viewer' with very little international coverage
It is all rather simplistic - I was in the States recently and remember seeing one of the networks waxing over the First Lady's peace mission to the Middle East ignoring some rather important facts
a. She's a woman
b. She is not elected and has no power or diplomatic credibility
c. She's married to the hated George Bush
Add to this the need for entertainment [ratings are everything], the decline in the use of professional journalists in favour of people who look pretty, and the budget cuts mentioned above and you can see why the US public is badly informed
There have been some good books recently by the US anchors that actually were journalists that expose these issues
Its not just a US phenomenon - look at BBC TV news
good point . At least with regards to Europe, transportation to and from Europe is easy and cheap ,centralize in New york and its 3,000 miles more or less to California or London why maintain a Bureau? This is just a thought but the US military could in broad terms, be following a similar trend. More basing of the Military in the US on a permanent basis and deployments on a need to basis, to much smaller bases . I think that is what Runsfeld has in mind. I could be wrong
I don't agree. Most of the news networks--especially CNN--are so friggin' afraid of the administration and especially the right-wing whack-jobs they can't or won't try and go after them with the gust they deserve. If you consider the business sections of newspapers as part of the media they're inherently conservative in outlook; Wall St Journal, Barron's, NY Times business section, Business Week, etc.
Add to that talk-radio, which for a lot of people functions as their news and opinion shaper, the media 'bias' ain't so present.
On the subject of media agendas, I saw this on the BBC website tonight:
Headline: US jobless fall less than expected.
Actual story: US jobless drops to low of 4.7% (against expectations)
And people tell me the Beeb doesn't have an anti-US agenda. Sheesh.
What's your source for that figure? What evidence do you have to support that hypothesis? Or did you simply pull it out of your arrse like almost everything else you post?
The single biggest problem with US news media, especially TV, are the "journalists/commentators" who consider themselves to be more important than the stories they're supposed to be reporting. Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Joe Scarborough, Sean Hannity, Lou Dobbs, Anderson Cooper etc. etc. etc.- even that MSNBC drag queen Rita Cosby and that cnut Tucker Carlson.
I don't think Rita Cosby is a drag queeen , but she looks like she can't walk past a Donut Diner.
Tucker Carlson seems to be covering up for something else. "Methinks the lad doth protest too loud"
Have you fecking heard Rita Cosby speak?
I don't think Tucker Carlson is tucked away so deep in the closet that he is stood next to Narnia's passport control- no hom on TV would ever dress that badly. I do think it's obvious that he was given a good shoeing every day in school from kindergarten to college. He probably holds the world record for number of Chinese burns, purple nurples and wedgies received by one boy in a single term, along with the record for largest number of hot crumpets held between two arrse cheeks at any one time.
In this paper we estimate ADA (Americans for Democratic Action) scores for major media outlets such as the New York Times, USA Today, Fox Newsâ Special Report, and all three network television news shows. Our estimates allow us to answer such questions as âIs the average article in the New York Times more liberal than the average speech by Tom Daschle?â or âIs the average story on Fox News more conservative than the average speech by Bill Frist?â To compute our measure, we count the times that a media outlet cites various think tanks and other policy groups. We compare this with the times that members of Congress cite the same groups in their speeches on the floor of the House and Senate. By comparing the citation patterns we construct an ADA score. As a simplified example, imagine that there were only two think tanks, and suppose that the New York Times cited the first think tank twice as often as the second. Our method asks: What is the typical ADA score of members of Congress who exhibit the same frequency (2:1) in their speeches? This is the score that we would assign to the New York Times. Our results show a strong liberal bias. All of the news outlets except Fox Newsâ Special Report and the Washington Times received a score to the left of the average member of Congress. Consistent with many conservative critics, CBS Evening News and the New York Times received a score far left of center. Outlets such as USA Today, NPRâs Morning Edition, NBCâs Nightly News and ABCâs World News Tonight were moderately left. The most centrist outlets (but still left-leaning) by our measure were the Newshour with Jim Lehrer, CNNâs NewsNight with Aaron Brown, and ABCâs Good Morning America. Fox Newsâ Special Report, while right of center, was closer to the center than any of the three major networksâ evening news broadcasts. All of our findings refer strictly to the news stories of the outlets. That is, we omitted editorials, book reviews, and letters to the editor from our sample
This methodology is interesting but I feel it may be an attempt to nail jello (Si! I speaka da lingo) to the wall. I've had a quick scan of the paper and although I'm obviously not fully au fait with it I do note that they admit that their definition of bias is arguable. Subjectivity seems to pop its head up in a few other places too. I'll read it more carefully later.
My gut reaction is that a healthy news media might reasonably be expected to show a "bias" away from the stated position of the incumbent party and/or leader. As to the media "dying" I agree that Electronic News Gathering must have had an impact but its more of a metamorphoses than a death to my mind. Whether what comes out will be fit for the role remains to be seen.
Separate names with a comma.