July 14, 200917 yr Was there a time in the media when it wasn't an opinion maker? 1970's beat the drum vs. corruption in government 1960's beat the drum vs. the Vietnam War and Civil Rights 1950's beat the drum vs. McCarthy, and for Civil Rights 1940's beat the drum for the buildup of the War once we were in it. What about the press and their role in building up for WW I (Lusitania) and/or the Spanish-American War. Didn't Northern and Southern Newspapers approach the news from their slants? So are you saying its fine for the media to attempt to form people's opinions on matters, as opposed to simply reporting the news and letting the people form their opinions on their own?
July 14, 200917 yr So are you saying its fine for the media to attempt to form people's opinions on matters, as opposed to simply reporting the news and letting the people form their opinions on their own? Nope. I'm saying, when did it ever "just" do what you mention above? Big difference. There is the ideal of what we hope and believe something should be, and then there is the reality of what it has always been.
July 14, 200917 yr Nope. I'm saying, when did it ever "just" do what you mention above? Big difference. There is the ideal of what we hope and believe something should be, and then there is the reality of what it has always been. Agreed. So, at least to me, it's reasonable to take what the media reports with several huge grains of salt. In spite of the media's sometimes holier than thou approach to their profession (isn't it Scripps Howard's motto that is something like "give light, and people will find their own way"), at the end of the day, the media does and has skewered the news to support the opinions and objectives of the media executives/owners. Sorry to offend the media types, but the news industry is as bad or worse than lawyers and used car salesmen. Lawyers actually have a code of ethics that is and can be enforced, and as for used car salesmen, well let's just say they don't even try to portray they are something they are not. Which is just one more reason that people are fools in my opinion when they base their voting decisions on what politicians say (as opposed to what they have done) or on what the media reports about a candidate. Total, unadulturated fools.
July 14, 200917 yr Agreed. So, at least to me, it's reasonable to take what the media reports with several huge grains of salt. In spite of the media's sometimes holier than thou approach to their profession (isn't it Scripps Howard's motto that is something like "give light, and people will find their own way"), at the end of the day, the media does and has skewered the news to support the opinions and objectives of the media executives/owners. Sorry to offend the media types, but the news industry is as bad or worse than lawyers and used car salesmen. Lawyers actually have a code of ethics that is and can be enforced, and as for used car salesmen, well let's just say they don't even try to portray they are something they are not. Which is just one more reason that people are fools in my opinion when they base their voting decisions on what politicians say (as opposed to what they have done) or on what the media reports about a candidate. Total, unadulturated fools. Like any profession (lawyers, car salesmen, ministers, teachers, et al), there are good ones and bad ones. There are extremists and middle of the road people. There are those who think it is "all about them," and those who see that "it is all about the story." Media people have hacks and respected journalists as well. The difference is not whether we agree with them but whether they present the facts and truth in their story. :thumb: Some saw Murrow as a hack. Some saw him as a great journalist. My point is that it's always been that way, we just notice it more now because of that big box, or screen for some. :thumb:
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.