What's wrong with the media these days?

[Katia]

This is a common rant of mine. I didn't major in journalism, but I worked on the paper in college and learned a great deal of respect for the *idea* of journalism, at least.

I am amazed when I see things in large media sources that the adviser of my small-college, biweekly paper never would've allowed a bunch of kids to get away with.

 

[oc_in_fw]

Having been born in Germany, it is interesting how different media is the US. In Germany, the government owns the media channels. Because of this, news channels are not dependent on revenue that sensationalist headlines and "stories" generate. In the US, on the other hand, news channels are privately owned and depend heavily on revenue that stories like 9/11, the recent Boston bombing, various shootings, etc. generate. In Germany, stories are usually reported in a matter-of-fact way. This cuts out all of the hype that bombings and shootings cause.

This is not a pro- or anti-government rant or anything. Just some food for thought

It is all about profit now, and if it bleeds it leads. It used to be that the news was done as a service for keeping your network license, and it was an accepted loss leader. Once 24 hour cable news and profits got in the mix it was only a matter of time before it all went to hell.

 

[Arcadies]

I don't even follow the news anymore, for various reasons I quit about 10 years ago... However, I keep an all hazards radio on at all times at home and my phone set to receive texts for local severe weather/biohazards/emergencies etc. Otherwise, I figure if it's important enough, I'll eventually find out through other means. Hell, I didn't even know about the bombing until Wednesday morning. With smart phones, computers and the internet information moves so fast, most of these networks jump on any crumb they can and spew it as quickly as possible so they can be first...and a large portion of the time it's misinformation.

 

[tinashubby]

News Media has become my Biggest rant! Everything is reported with an agenda-I've recently paid attention to the headlines that state blah,blah percentage of Americans are for or against an issue, but when you look at the actual poll results they are often contradictory to the headlines. The media uses this to sway both public opinion and even goverment policies, and I am sure the government influences the media on what types of stories and ideas to run. Kinda of a subliminal thing IMHO, ie. if you keep reading it eventually yo believe it must be true. Tinfoil time perhaps?

Does anyone have any good resources for actual fact based news?

 

[Toothpick]

I'm really interested in the new HBO show VICE. It's a journalism show but deals more with global issues. More along the lines of a news documentary.

Anybody still read their local newspaper? That seems like a more reliable news source than anything on TV. If you can wait a day for it.

 

[Galengwath]

Anybody still read their local newspaper? That seems like a more reliable news source than anything on TV. If you can wait a day for it.

Sometimes. It may be more reliable in reporting facts, particularly with local events, but our local papers tend to be just as politically biased as anything you'll find on television. It's a sad state of affairs. Having worked on a couple newspaper staffs in high school and college it's sad to see so many journalists motivated by getting a scoop or pushing their personal agendas.


But let's not kid ourselves, folks. This is, to varying extents, the way journalism has always been. Newspapers in particular have for hundreds of years been used as vehicles to advance social/political agendas, even if they also report factual news. The fact that televised news operates in the same way shouldn't be that surprising, even though it would be nice if all journalists would strive to be unbiased and accurate.

 

[SalvadorMontenegro]

The media is a business, selling a product, and they sell what people want to buy. I think in the past there was more of a balance between moral responsibility and drive for profit, but now, "these days," the drive for profit supersedes ethics. It's almost like the yellow journalism that was prevalent in the Tammany Hall days.

The night of the bombings, the NY Post, the most disgusting, vile, exploitative newspaper in the country, reported that 12 people had been killed. Why? Not because they really believed that 12 had been killed, or because they had a credible source that reported that 12 had been killed. They did it because they knew that people would rush over to the paper's Web site for that sensational report, report that report to others and those others would rush to the site, as well. It's repugnant and irresponsible, but it's fantastic business acumen; and the people running that paper are fabulously wealthy. While I find it abject and dissolute, it's also, conversely, admirable, because they know exactly what they're doing and they're doing it very well.

This sort of reporting will continue until people stop buying it. I don't see that happening.

 

[Hunter]

I'm really interested in the new HBO show VICE. It's a journalism show but deals more with global issues. More along the lines of a news documentary.

Anybody still read their local newspaper? That seems like a more reliable news source than anything on TV. If you can wait a day for it.

I have been watching and reading VICE off and on for the last few years, they have shown me some amazing things.

 

[Toothpick]

I have been watching and reading VICE off and on for the last few years, they have shown me some amazing things.

the first EP about the politically killings in the Philippines was shocking to me.

 

[redrako]

After having just revisited local television news for most of my waking hours yesterday to watch manhunt coverage for bombing suspect #2 yesterday. I'm glad that I don't spend much time watching local or network coverage. It's been over a decade since I've regularly watched commercial TV news. Yet I used to be a big fan of TV news coverage and newspaper writing, particularly the Boston Globe, so have read a fair amount of coverage about the state of news coverage over the years, so will offer a few point.

I agree with the observation that there have always been flaws in journalism, this particularly reached a high point in the late 1800's with what was later called yellow journalism, which was clearly designed to play to fears, play to stereotypes and generally appeal to readers emotions rather than their intellect.

Not too many decades back, when TV technology allowed for mobile TV cameras to become portable and TV stations set up newscasts, early reporters were often very experienced Newspaper men (they were all men then). They were experienced writers who knew the business of journalism, the who, what, where, when, how questions. On a network level, news broadcasts were built on large network news radio broadcasts with large resources. For example each network had several reporters covering the Vietnam War. Cameramen shot with film, was flown express to the west coast of the U.S. to be transferred to videotape.

As a finished product, we got Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, and others who gave us a sober, formal usually well-vetted newscast. There were no flashy computer graphics, little bumper music and a lot less emotional manipulation. Yet in most cities, there was a maximum of three networks on three channels. When I was growing up the only competition to the news was watching Hogan's Heroes on UHF. At the time of his retirement, Walter Cronkite was the most trusted man in America.

With the widespread adoption of cable TV network news saw a huge drop in audience and adopted a lot of practices that lower tier local stations had used. There was much more use of celebrity journalists and younger, better looking reporters (who were often not versed in newspaper writing). Anchors were chosen more for personality and pizazz as networks cut back on field reporters and producers. The O.J. Simpson story taught networks that sensationalism and celebrity would bring viewers back, albeit for a short time. If Cronkite was the most trusted man in America, Dan Rather the good looking ambitious post Watergate anchor struggled as IMO, he looked like a parody of a network anchor in the 1980's and 90's.

Presently I only see network news at the gym in the evening when I cringe just seeing the body language of Erin Burnett on CNN as she tries to set up gotcha questions. I get my news from online articles of the New York Times, Boston Globe, various local web sites and two public radio stations.

 

[saltypete]

I awoke to read about the Boston Bombings in the newspaper ( I subscribe to The Australian app for Ipad). All of the morning 'news' programs, I use the term very loosely as most days they are nothing more than advertisments dressed up as 'news, ran extended coverage of the tragedy. There was very little information available at that stage although there were some Aussie reporters on the ground in Boston. What I objected to was the constant replays of the footage of one of the bombs detonating. It was played repeatedly. When I thought about it, what they were showing was people being murdered, maimed and traumatised for life. Fair enough that they show the footage but seeing it every 10 minutes or so was, I thought, in very bad taste.

Pete

 

[Artimid]

As far as the Boston bombing went, I learned about it immediately after it happened due to a fellow student in my IPE class. Seems a friend of hers crossed the finish line 7 minutes before the explosion, and texted her in class to tell her.
As far as the media goes, I honestly have no use for it. I am not a -huge- Colbert fan, but I did find it interesting when he was on the Daily Show and was interviewing the newspaper editor for the NYT. He stated that everything in the newspaper was old news, and when the editor said it wasn't, asked for news happening now which was impossible. This really solidified a point for me, in that the media as we know it should be dead. It is struggling on and trying to latch onto the current world in any way in can, including letting people tweet for what news story they want to hear.

And it all comes down, really, to the fact that most organizations are just repeating what the AP states anyways, so following that pretty much lets you know what all the news coverage will be about, without ever really going past the superficial layer. Really sad, and really past the prime. We need to rethink our media in the current age, as it is too slow, too full of errors which nullify the length of time it takes, and the media outlets have too many "teases" to get us to watch past the commercials. Last time I watched the news, they were talking about a police officer killing and the progress of the hunt for his murderer, and dared to interrupt that with sports.. seriously. They had more information on the story, but it was sports time, and real news couldn't break into that time, nope. That really says it all. (The killing was close enough to me, at the time, that I kind of needed to know if it was safe to go outside without problems or causing problems for others)