I'm wondering what the social impact is of not having a reliable source of communication, such as the newspapers were intended to be. With Fox being so caught up in political propaganda, though which side they were on was a topic of debate, it seems to have tainted our ability to feel secure that the news is pure news.
First, is this true? Do you trust the newspapers and channels?
The internet makes it a lot easier to compare sources now but, of course, internet information is only as good as its source.
Second, what do you think is function of news reporting and it's role in society?
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
Good question and I can only speak for myself. First, I think all of us have certain preconceived ideas on many issues, abortion, gay rights, health care, social services etc. etc. and we tend to gravitate to and then latch on to those news sources that support our preconceived ideas. I try to read news and editorials from across the political spectrum to get some balance. I will read and watch far left news sources and far right news sources. My problem is that I don't really relate TOTALLY to any of them and have not found one news source that fits my social and political preconceptions.
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
koan;1339183 wrote: I'm wondering what the social impact is of not having a reliable source of communication, such as the newspapers were intended to be. With Fox being so caught up in political propaganda, though which side they were on was a topic of debate, it seems to have tainted our ability to feel secure that the news is pure news.
First, is this true? Do you trust the newspapers and channels?
The internet makes it a lot easier to compare sources now but, of course, internet information is only as good as its source.
Second, what do you think is function of news reporting and it's role in society?
1) No, all to often time proves that the information given is false.
2) Impartial presentation and analysis of the available facts (analysis as in providing background information and comparisons to similar events). Straight propaganda and attempts to generate public opinion are a no-no.
First, is this true? Do you trust the newspapers and channels?
The internet makes it a lot easier to compare sources now but, of course, internet information is only as good as its source.
Second, what do you think is function of news reporting and it's role in society?
1) No, all to often time proves that the information given is false.
2) Impartial presentation and analysis of the available facts (analysis as in providing background information and comparisons to similar events). Straight propaganda and attempts to generate public opinion are a no-no.
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
I'm thinking of the reason we have freedom of the press and the importance of that right to the public in regards to keeping transparency in the government. If the press is considered to be propaganda then the people would develop insecurities and paranoias about their country, yes? I'm intrigued as to the sociological impact of propagandist reporting.
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
Newspapers are good at facts, so long as they're not claims about "celebrities". I exclude opinion columns from that observation. The bias they introduce is more to do with what topics they print or refuse to print and what they omit from their account. A good newspaper provides information both favourable and unfavourable to their current editorial line. The place for them to provide their gloss is in their editorial section.
I'd be at a loss without the papers, they're an essential component of society. I reckon they achieve high standards, too. Even propagandist editorials can be informative.
I'd be at a loss without the papers, they're an essential component of society. I reckon they achieve high standards, too. Even propagandist editorials can be informative.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
The problem as far as I see it is that even the newspapers are now impacted by what is causing all the world’s problems to begin with, that is profit.
Newspapers and other media use to be the main source of information and it reported ‘news’, but now, news is driven by what sells papers and not necessarily on what the important issues are.
Is celebrity gossip “news”? These days it is as it fills most of the papers headlines. How is it that no matter how many papers there are, or how many radio stations you listen to. At news time they are all telling the exact same stories??? So no I don’t trust them in general.
During the mining rescue in Chile, one main news stations in Britain Sky News was being made fun of all over the place for their coverage. They could not wait for something to go wrong, the jokes are like “Tragedy for Sky news, all miners are rescued safely”.
It is about sensationalism, ratings and profit.
The only good news station now that I like is Euro News as it gives unbiased news about what is happening all across Europe and the world, and you get to hear real news that you would never see anywhere else (unless you were on line searching for it).
Newspapers and other media use to be the main source of information and it reported ‘news’, but now, news is driven by what sells papers and not necessarily on what the important issues are.
Is celebrity gossip “news”? These days it is as it fills most of the papers headlines. How is it that no matter how many papers there are, or how many radio stations you listen to. At news time they are all telling the exact same stories??? So no I don’t trust them in general.
During the mining rescue in Chile, one main news stations in Britain Sky News was being made fun of all over the place for their coverage. They could not wait for something to go wrong, the jokes are like “Tragedy for Sky news, all miners are rescued safely”.
It is about sensationalism, ratings and profit.
The only good news station now that I like is Euro News as it gives unbiased news about what is happening all across Europe and the world, and you get to hear real news that you would never see anywhere else (unless you were on line searching for it).
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
You should try Al Jazeera, Mike. You'd be surprised at the quality.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
to be honest with you, I don't really trust all what I read or see in the media and newspapers 100 %. you know, they show you the bad part and leave other parts..
that's what I think
that's what I think
I miss you Odie
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
M.A.S;1339495 wrote: to be honest with you, I don't really trust all what I read or see in the media and newspapers 100 %. you know, they show you the bad part and leave other parts..
that's what I think
Certainly - bad news sells papers better than good news so the reporting is biassed towards it. It's the outright lies and deception that gets me.
that's what I think
Certainly - bad news sells papers better than good news so the reporting is biassed towards it. It's the outright lies and deception that gets me.
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
I stopped reading papers every day when I was about 21. I decided to read the language use very carefully for opinion wording and found one tiny article reporting an accident and asking for witnesses was the only thing not worded as an opinion.
I've also listened to some pretty horrific spew that was being passed off as knowledge based on what the newspapers were slant reporting.
I only read them out of intrigue now but never take them seriously until I confirm the facts via multiple sources.
I've also listened to some pretty horrific spew that was being passed off as knowledge based on what the newspapers were slant reporting.
I only read them out of intrigue now but never take them seriously until I confirm the facts via multiple sources.
Do you trust the newspapers/ channels?
koan;1339644 wrote: I only read them out of intrigue now but never take them seriously until I confirm the facts via multiple sources.
The problem you're describing is scarcely new. This is from a book I'm reading at the moment, W Copeland Borlase's "Sunways", 1878, in a passage written near Cincinnati:Having time to read the local newspapers, we could not but observe their singular grossness. There was not one reliable incident or one single fact on any important subject clearly stated from one end of them to the other. Besides this we noticed that the tone in which assassination was spoken of as the proper fate of unpopular men, even if simply obeying State orders (as was the case just then with General Sheridan), was most criminal.
Luckily, the majority of their readers treat them as a joke, and drop them with contempt, retaining their own opinions still. The pages which are not devoted to villany are generally filled with poor jokes, too poor to be appreciated by any educated man, and yet sufficiently characteristic to stamp the editor as a pander to degraded tastes.
The problem you're describing is scarcely new. This is from a book I'm reading at the moment, W Copeland Borlase's "Sunways", 1878, in a passage written near Cincinnati:Having time to read the local newspapers, we could not but observe their singular grossness. There was not one reliable incident or one single fact on any important subject clearly stated from one end of them to the other. Besides this we noticed that the tone in which assassination was spoken of as the proper fate of unpopular men, even if simply obeying State orders (as was the case just then with General Sheridan), was most criminal.
Luckily, the majority of their readers treat them as a joke, and drop them with contempt, retaining their own opinions still. The pages which are not devoted to villany are generally filled with poor jokes, too poor to be appreciated by any educated man, and yet sufficiently characteristic to stamp the editor as a pander to degraded tastes.
Nullius in verba ... ☎||||||||||| ... To Fate I sue, of other means bereft, the only refuge for the wretched left. ... Hold no regard for unsupported opinion.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.
When flower power came along I stood for Human Rights, marched around for peace and freedom, had some nooky every night - we took it serious. [Fred Wedlock, "The Folker"]
Who has a spare two minutes to play in this month's FG Trivia game! ... My other OS is Slackware.