What is your view, all things considered? Have we become so obsessed with media being "objective" that today the model of the media is to give equal air time to two sides of every issue, no matter how boneheaded, outrageous or plain wrong one side of it may be? Or has the "truth" become so elusive and relative in this post-modern era, that any case where the media take sides means they automatically become "partisan"?
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 08:58:59 AM
Have we become so obsessed with media being "objective" that today the model of the media is to give equal air time to two sides of every issue, no matter how boneheaded, outrageous or plain wrong one side of it may be?
Well we don't actually have the Fairness Doctrine in place anymore so...
There doesn't appear to be any media concern in a practical sense for them to be anything other than entertainment.
In theory, I don't see anything wrong with media reporting the facts, and calling bullshit on the opposing soundbite. In practice, the media is run by journalists, which seems to be a profession that is most devoid of critical thinking out of all the professions.
Professional journalism died the very moment the letters "www" were strung together.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 09:31:45 AM
Professional journalism died the very moment the letters "www" were strung together.
Coincidence that such appears to have occurred around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union?
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 09:38:35 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 09:31:45 AM
Professional journalism died the very moment the letters "www" were strung together.
Coincidence that such appears to have occurred around the time of the fall of the Soviet Union?
Reminds me of the old joke - in Russia the state lies and the press lies; in the West, the state lies and the press lies. The only difference is that in the West, the lies are not the
same lies. ;)
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 09:11:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 08:58:59 AM
Have we become so obsessed with media being "objective" that today the model of the media is to give equal air time to two sides of every issue, no matter how boneheaded, outrageous or plain wrong one side of it may be?
Well we don't actually have the Fairness Doctrine in place anymore so...
Still, it seems to be the most popular modus operandi these days to invite a geography professor and a flat Earth society representative, and have them argue on air.
Getting a fair and balanced look at both sides of the issue is a bit like getting Joseph Göbbels and Chaim Waitzman on to discuss the holocaust. In a sense pure theoretical journalism won't get you anywhere except post-modernist relativist bs and mud slinging for the entire 3 minute segment.
Journalists who do let their feelings, preconceptions and conclusions into their journalism almost always do so from a position of emotion and feeling.
Presenting both sides will almost certainly not make anybody informed, each side will merely grasp their own preferred facts and conclusions and run with them. Presenting the facts means first picking which facts to present and then people will just grasp their own preferred facts and conclusions and run with them.
I think we need more asshole journalists like Jeremy Paxman and others. IMHO journalism today is pussified and partisan. This is what was always going to happen when journalism is a self selecting profession. We need more wannabe writers who can't get published or asocial dicks who can't hold down a job in insurance or whatever. The fucking last thing we need is political hacks and naïve idealists who want to save the world. We need more scumbags who think that the point of journalism is make the marks and n00bs more informed.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2012, 09:15:48 AM
There doesn't appear to be any media concern in a practical sense for them to be anything other than entertainment.
You should probably pick other media, then. I think NPR generally does a pretty good job of presenting different sides to a debate, for instance, and their news shows are not intended as pure entertainment.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 10:04:37 AM
I think NPR generally does a pretty good job of presenting different sides to a debate, for instance, and their news shows are not intended as pure entertainment.
Must be why Republicans in the House try ever year to defund it.
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 09:59:19 AM
Quote from: garbon on September 10, 2012, 09:11:15 AM
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 08:58:59 AM
Have we become so obsessed with media being "objective" that today the model of the media is to give equal air time to two sides of every issue, no matter how boneheaded, outrageous or plain wrong one side of it may be?
Well we don't actually have the Fairness Doctrine in place anymore so...
Still, it seems to be the most popular modus operandi these days to invite a geography professor and a flat Earth society representative, and have them argue on air.
That's not because the media is trying to be objective though. Rather, putting two wildly varying points of view and letting them argue is cheap and reasonably amusing programming.
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Must be why Republicans in the House try ever year to defund it.
NPR itself gets very little federal funding. Almost all of the Fed money goes to keep stations going in the boonies, where there isn't enough corporate or member support to keep stations going. These are, amusingly enough, Republican strongholds.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 10:17:14 AM
That's not because the media is trying to be objective though. Rather, putting two wildly varying points of view and letting them argue is cheap and reasonably amusing programming.
Exactly. That type of "debate" is designed to generate heat, not light.
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 10:31:23 AM
Quote from: CountDeMoney on September 10, 2012, 10:10:37 AM
Must be why Republicans in the House try ever year to defund it.
NPR itself gets very little federal funding. Almost all of the Fed money goes to keep stations going in the boonies, where there isn't enough corporate or member support to keep stations going. These are, amusingly enough, Republican strongholds.
I know that. You know that. What few ducats they get from the government doesn't stop them from trying to kill it every year, however. The concepts of public radio or public television is communist, you know.
House GOP Unveils Bill To Kill AmeriCorps, End Federal Funding For NPR, PBS, Planned Parenthood (http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/07/17/house-gop-unveils-bill-to_n_1681082.html)
I thought American Conservatives viewed "public broadcasting" the same way Canadian Conservatives view "public broadcasting": that the tv side is a bunch of freedom-hating communists, but that the radio side did a pretty good job at informing people (especially out in the middle of nowhere)?
Quote from: grumbler on September 10, 2012, 10:04:37 AM
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2012, 09:15:48 AM
There doesn't appear to be any media concern in a practical sense for them to be anything other than entertainment.
You should probably pick other media, then. I think NPR generally does a pretty good job of presenting different sides to a debate, for instance, and their news shows are not intended as pure entertainment.
But that is just my point - the media out there that isn't crap also isn't really relevant. NPR? I like NPR - I like CSM, I like The Atlantic. I like lots of stuff that does a pretty good job of actual journalism.
The problem is that it doesn't seem like the ones trying to actually do journalism are the ones that most people actually listen to. It is like there is a perverse and inverse relationship between how ethical and professional a news organization tries to be and its ability to actual inform significant numbers of people.
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 10:40:37 AM
I thought American Conservatives viewed "public broadcasting" the same way Canadian Conservatives view "public broadcasting": that the tv side is a bunch of freedom-hating communists, but that the radio side did a pretty good job at informing people (especially out in the middle of nowhere)?
Conservative American anti-intellectualism makes no such distinctions.
Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?
Quote from: Barrister on September 10, 2012, 10:40:37 AM
I thought American Conservatives viewed "public broadcasting" the same way Canadian Conservatives view "public broadcasting": that the tv side is a bunch of freedom-hating communists, but that the radio side did a pretty good job at informing people (especially out in the middle of nowhere)?
I think it's just the opposite in the US. National Public Radio is seen as the freedom-hating communists even though they usually do a good job of being reasonably balanced. TV is primarily science, nature and arts/cooking shows, with the news/politics confined to a half hour weekdays and sunday mornings.
To respond to the OP, media doesn't have an obligation to present both sides of a controversial issue as equally true or plausible, but it does have an obligation to present opinions on both sides of controversial issues.
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 10:52:48 AM
Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?
It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....but I have to admit I do in fact like the show.
The dialogue alone is worth the price of entry.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2012, 12:55:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 10:52:48 AM
Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?
It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....
Kinda like Martinus.
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2012, 12:55:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 10:52:48 AM
Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?
It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....but I have to admit I do in fact like the show.
The dialogue alone is worth the price of entry.
My thoughts exactly. It's very in your face when it comes to ideology but I kinda like it, as a sort of fairytale for adults. :P
Quote from: Berkut on September 10, 2012, 12:55:39 PM
Quote from: Martinus on September 10, 2012, 10:52:48 AM
Speaking of which, anyone here likes "Newsroom"?
It is ridiculously ham handed and rather superficial....but I have to admit I do in fact like the show.
The dialogue alone is worth the price of entry.
given that the first episode is pretty much in my specific field of work I just kept thinking about the Mitchell and Webb Cricket movie sketch.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CUyK_J_W4BI
at that point it was just ruined for me. I love the Pill and the Daniels but meh... when characters that are supposed to be smart start spouting jibberish on the topics that they are supposed to be smart about .. oh, well.. If I want technobabble I can watch star trek re-runs since I'm not an anti-matter-warp engine-physicist.
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2012, 11:29:06 AM
To respond to the OP, media doesn't have an obligation to present both sides of a controversial issue as equally true or plausible, but it does have an obligation to present opinions on both sides of controversial issues.
Yeah, but the problem is when it comes to actual facts, the media has trouble getting them right even when there isn't a controversial issue involved. If there's a 4-car pile-up at the intersection of 1st and Main at noon, whether even those basic facts will be reported accurately is less than a 50/50 proposition.
The only journalism I remotely trust is The Economist.
Quote from: dps on September 10, 2012, 08:56:47 PM
Quote from: Admiral Yi on September 10, 2012, 11:29:06 AM
To respond to the OP, media doesn't have an obligation to present both sides of a controversial issue as equally true or plausible, but it does have an obligation to present opinions on both sides of controversial issues.
Yeah, but the problem is when it comes to actual facts, the media has trouble getting them right even when there isn't a controversial issue involved. If there's a 4-car pile-up at the intersection of 1st and Main at noon, whether even those basic facts will be reported accurately is less than a 50/50 proposition.
So true,
I remember my car accident reported in local newspaper. I was described as ... a woman, while in fact my passenger was one. Hell, no one bothered to ask me about it, everyone knew better. :D
Quote from: The Brain on September 14, 2012, 12:29:36 PM
The only journalism I remotely trust is The Economist.
What about the Daily Tim?
Quote from: szmik on September 14, 2012, 01:10:11 PM
So true,
I remember my car accident reported in local newspaper. I was described as ... a woman, while in fact my passenger was one. Hell, no one bothered to ask me about it, everyone knew better. :D
:x Yikes, that must've been a horrible accident. So sorry. :console: