Top | Newest First | Oldest First
AbbeyRhode · F
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
Heartlander · 80-89, M
Calling it “mainstream” is probably a mistake. A better adjective would be “managed”. We in the US have a media that doesn’t necessarily represent mainstream public or even mainstream publishers leanings, but manages entertainment and news much like Ford or IBM manages the distribution of their automobiles and computers. Ford and IBM and the thousands of big corporations in th US manage the distribution of their products by an assortment of franchise or subsidiary or contract obligations, and the actual distributors are bound by contract to distribute per the dictates of their parent provider. So your local TV or radio station, that may be independently owned may have its content managed not by the station owner but by the affiliated network. Much like your nearby fast food place has their products defined by the parent franchiser.
So whether TV or Radio or your local newspaper or your local movie house, what gets presented to the local public is determined not by the owners or managers of the local businesses but by a handful of people at the distribution level.
For a few years I worked for companies that were distributors of national brand computers and electronic products. Contracts with the branded distributors were pretty severe, requiring we ordered so many a month and governing how we could advertise their products. I also have family involved in movie theaters, and likewise, movie theaters have strict guidance on what, when and how movies are show.
To apply such business practices to the press seems to me to undermine the freedom of the press.
So whether TV or Radio or your local newspaper or your local movie house, what gets presented to the local public is determined not by the owners or managers of the local businesses but by a handful of people at the distribution level.
For a few years I worked for companies that were distributors of national brand computers and electronic products. Contracts with the branded distributors were pretty severe, requiring we ordered so many a month and governing how we could advertise their products. I also have family involved in movie theaters, and likewise, movie theaters have strict guidance on what, when and how movies are show.
To apply such business practices to the press seems to me to undermine the freedom of the press.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@Heartlander
I would include large swathes of the Internet in that "etc." As time goes on that <50 owners might reduce further by mergers and acquisitions, although the companies also do have share-holders even if they have little or no influence in what the companies publish.
A Utah-resident PM correspondent on here has sometimes told me America is a poor country. When I pointed out the USA is perhaps the world's richest country, he explained he means a huge number of people are poor.
If the politicians' 5% claim is right, 20 million is so many people I wonder what the politicians use as the minimum amount of money to be described as rich. Though that number of bank-accounts does make the 90% claim more credible.
It probably includes a lot of corporate directors and not only entertainments-owners, but also the most highly-paid entertainers and sports stars.
At one time, a Briton whose cash and assets amounted to £1 000 000 was a "millionaire" and there were relatively few of them. That was only a few decades ago too, but now far more people have estates approaching at least half that by living in homes whose value has risen to over a third of a million £ value. While many others even in high-grade employment, can't afford a home a lot less than that, especially in London and in certain provinces popular with long-distance commuters and second-home buyers. .
I would include large swathes of the Internet in that "etc." As time goes on that <50 owners might reduce further by mergers and acquisitions, although the companies also do have share-holders even if they have little or no influence in what the companies publish.
A Utah-resident PM correspondent on here has sometimes told me America is a poor country. When I pointed out the USA is perhaps the world's richest country, he explained he means a huge number of people are poor.
If the politicians' 5% claim is right, 20 million is so many people I wonder what the politicians use as the minimum amount of money to be described as rich. Though that number of bank-accounts does make the 90% claim more credible.
It probably includes a lot of corporate directors and not only entertainments-owners, but also the most highly-paid entertainers and sports stars.
At one time, a Briton whose cash and assets amounted to £1 000 000 was a "millionaire" and there were relatively few of them. That was only a few decades ago too, but now far more people have estates approaching at least half that by living in homes whose value has risen to over a third of a million £ value. While many others even in high-grade employment, can't afford a home a lot less than that, especially in London and in certain provinces popular with long-distance commuters and second-home buyers. .
DogMan · 61-69, M
@ArishMell There are very few poor people in the U.S. You can live your life in the U.S.
without ever having a job, or contributing in any way, and still have a roof over your head,
a big screen TV, and a smart phone. To say they are "poor" is a huge disservice, to
the millions of actual poor people around the world.
without ever having a job, or contributing in any way, and still have a roof over your head,
a big screen TV, and a smart phone. To say they are "poor" is a huge disservice, to
the millions of actual poor people around the world.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DogMan I see. How do they manage that though?
I suppose poverty is relative, and you can't really call yourself "poor" if you can afford those luxuries, but I agree. There are millions around the world who do live in real poverty, with ramshackle accommodation at best, no mains water, electricity, etc.
I suppose poverty is relative, and you can't really call yourself "poor" if you can afford those luxuries, but I agree. There are millions around the world who do live in real poverty, with ramshackle accommodation at best, no mains water, electricity, etc.
ArishMell · 70-79, M
Trying to report what really happens and what people really say, not what anonymous sources on antisocial-media want you to believe for their own ends, what happened or was said.
Where you live affects it a lot.
If you live in a country like Russia, Turkey or China the media can and must tell you only what the government wants you to think.
If you live in a democracy but the media are all commercial, unless there are strict controls on separating news reports from opinions so you know which is which, you need determine the proprietors' political leanings to judge the fairness of the reporting. Remember that they do not need lie to bias the reports. Newspapers commonly give selected facts without qualification - e.g. by omitting important conditional clauses from quotes of speeches; or by giving only one side of a dispute. You usually soon know, and allow for, their bias.
If you live in a country with public-service rather than State broadcasters you can usually trust those. An indicator of political neutrality is not only them trying to present both sides of an argument or even war, but critics (probably wanting bias in their favour), alleging bias towards their opponents.
In the UK the commercial broadcasters are under the same obligation as the BBC to avoid biased reporting as much as possible, to make clear the difference between reports and opinions, and to allow opposing opinions to have their say. On the whole they do, to the extent that when I hear or read an attack on their credibility I carefully consider the critic's own ideology and motive first.
If they are reporting on something very difficult or dangerous to investigate, such as a war, they will say when some claim by either side cannot be verified.
Where you live affects it a lot.
If you live in a country like Russia, Turkey or China the media can and must tell you only what the government wants you to think.
If you live in a democracy but the media are all commercial, unless there are strict controls on separating news reports from opinions so you know which is which, you need determine the proprietors' political leanings to judge the fairness of the reporting. Remember that they do not need lie to bias the reports. Newspapers commonly give selected facts without qualification - e.g. by omitting important conditional clauses from quotes of speeches; or by giving only one side of a dispute. You usually soon know, and allow for, their bias.
If you live in a country with public-service rather than State broadcasters you can usually trust those. An indicator of political neutrality is not only them trying to present both sides of an argument or even war, but critics (probably wanting bias in their favour), alleging bias towards their opponents.
In the UK the commercial broadcasters are under the same obligation as the BBC to avoid biased reporting as much as possible, to make clear the difference between reports and opinions, and to allow opposing opinions to have their say. On the whole they do, to the extent that when I hear or read an attack on their credibility I carefully consider the critic's own ideology and motive first.
If they are reporting on something very difficult or dangerous to investigate, such as a war, they will say when some claim by either side cannot be verified.
DogMan · 61-69, M
The MSM and other media, is there to tell us what to think. Thankfully the smart
people know that there are truths, and lies, both right and left.
The left controls over 90% of media, and many people believe every word they
say, without ever looking at things from a different perspective. The other 10%
of right wing media also lies, and tries to tell us what to think.
This 90/10 split is on purpose. As it is now, the country is split down the middle.
If we were to have a 50/50 split in the media, we can see which way things
would go, and the powerful, do not want a majority of right wingers OR left
wingers. It's much safer for them to keep the country evenly split.
people know that there are truths, and lies, both right and left.
The left controls over 90% of media, and many people believe every word they
say, without ever looking at things from a different perspective. The other 10%
of right wing media also lies, and tries to tell us what to think.
This 90/10 split is on purpose. As it is now, the country is split down the middle.
If we were to have a 50/50 split in the media, we can see which way things
would go, and the powerful, do not want a majority of right wingers OR left
wingers. It's much safer for them to keep the country evenly split.
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
ArishMell · 70-79, M
@DogMan There is another, more insidious way to bias reporting. That is to tell only the truth but selectively so, avoiding anything that might qualify the events or quoted statements.
There is another "accidental" source of bias by selection, and it is the bane of honest journalism That is the refusal of one or another party to give its side of a dispute. The refusers are generally government agencies and large commercial companies who have hurt the complainants, far more often by ineptitude and obtuse bureaucracy than malevolence. At best they "issue a statement" like one of those silly business-fad "mission statements", to avoid answering the question. Or "No-one was available for comment" - or a downright refusal of the invitation.
You repeat one simple and common error, often found in advertising and campaigning based on dubious "surveys", or selective quoting of real surveys, that of quoting only percentages without giving the base numbers. Nor the source.
One test of any news service is to examine how much effort it makes to give both, or all sides, of very difficult matters.
Another is to examine the allegations of bias made against it. If those from one side of any argument it reports, roughly equal those from the other, then it must be reasonably fair. In that case any accusation is most likely a complaint that the service is giving the critic's opponent's side, or showing the critic to be wrong about the matter.
Another is to examine its analysis of any contentious and difficult matter. If it only gives noisy "headline grabbers" without much detail, let alone exploring the backgrounds, history, biographies, geography or other relevant information in any real depth, how can any of its audience understand the subjects? If so, does it want such comprehension, and if not, why not?
There is another "accidental" source of bias by selection, and it is the bane of honest journalism That is the refusal of one or another party to give its side of a dispute. The refusers are generally government agencies and large commercial companies who have hurt the complainants, far more often by ineptitude and obtuse bureaucracy than malevolence. At best they "issue a statement" like one of those silly business-fad "mission statements", to avoid answering the question. Or "No-one was available for comment" - or a downright refusal of the invitation.
You repeat one simple and common error, often found in advertising and campaigning based on dubious "surveys", or selective quoting of real surveys, that of quoting only percentages without giving the base numbers. Nor the source.
One test of any news service is to examine how much effort it makes to give both, or all sides, of very difficult matters.
Another is to examine the allegations of bias made against it. If those from one side of any argument it reports, roughly equal those from the other, then it must be reasonably fair. In that case any accusation is most likely a complaint that the service is giving the critic's opponent's side, or showing the critic to be wrong about the matter.
Another is to examine its analysis of any contentious and difficult matter. If it only gives noisy "headline grabbers" without much detail, let alone exploring the backgrounds, history, biographies, geography or other relevant information in any real depth, how can any of its audience understand the subjects? If so, does it want such comprehension, and if not, why not?
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
Heartlander · 80-89, M
akindheart · 61-69, F
nudistsueaz · 61-69, F
curiousaboy · 26-30, M
@nudistsueaz True, There are no any independent mainstream medial at all
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
ididntknow · 51-55, M
@JimboSaturn I hope you’re being sarcastic, but somehow I think you’re being serious
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@ididntknow I'm serious. The rest is biased. Either right or left. If you are talking about CNN, well I have to say it's biased as well.
JimboSaturn · 51-55, M
@JimboSaturn Or devoid of conspiracy theories :P
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
First, define what "Mainstream Media" is these days when most people get their news from what is trending on their streaming media of choice?
@dancingtongue The establishment press, what the state attempts to push down our throats.
ididntknow · 51-55, M
@dancingtongue mainstream media is exactly what it is, mainstream, not citizen journalists
dancingtongue · 80-89, M
@NativePortlander1970 @ididntknow So basically it is any media that you disagree with. Not something you can describe by type, size, ownership -- you just disagree with them.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
Mind management for NATO.
Roundandroundwego · 61-69
@NativePortlander1970 if Americans want that they'll take over the means of communication. They're suicidal on everyone's behalf instead.
@Roundandroundwego Care to elaborate?
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
MarineBob · 56-60, M
To make one think on their own.
nudistsueaz · 61-69, F
Maybe in your country.
ImperialAerosolKidFromEP · 51-55, M
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
This comment is hidden.
Show Comment
sunsporter1649 · 70-79, M
