Getbig Bodybuilding, Figure and Fitness Forums
Getbig Main Boards => Politics and Political Issues Board => Topic started by: 240 is Back on October 01, 2012, 08:47:09 AM
-
Imagine if our MSM did its job like Univision. :-\
I think is where the disconnect is taking place. What is the "JOB" of the group of companies that make up the US media?
To make money for their shareholders, of course. Not to keep it real, not to be fair and balanced, not to maintain any level of 'journalistic integrity'. Those things are not the reality of any media outlet. They aren't paid in karma, they're paid in cold hard dollars from advertisers, to the shareholders/stockholders.
FOX doesn't put F&F on their airwaves because they feel it's the moral thing to do - they put it on the air because its viewers are very very interested in the topic. And these viewers = profit.
So really, 'the job' of the mainstream media isn't to cover F&F. The media isn't a morality organization (and covering this article is the morally right thing to do). The media - a group of us CORPORATIONS - is here to make money by selling current events with opinion and glossy graphics. Period. Entertainment companies like BET or MTV or TNT or AMC.
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Since the founders thought is was important enough to put in the bill of rights, not only that but the 1st Amendment, to keep government honest.
-
"Congress shall make no law respecting an establishment of religion, or prohibiting the free exercise thereof; or abridging the freedom of speech, or of the press; or the right of the people peaceably to assemble, and to petition the Government for a redress of grievances."
Since the founders thought is was important enough to put in the bill of rights, not only that but the 1st Amendment, to keep government honest.
THis doesn't answer the question. Freedom of the press to say anything they want is supported by the Consitution. Yea, we're seeing that :) They have that, and they're all making up shit left and right to prove that.
Where is it written, anywhere, that the media/press has a duty to tell the truth?
-
THis doesn't answer the question. Freedom of the press to say anything they want is supported by the Consitution. Yea, we're seeing that :) They have that, and they're all making up shit left and right to prove that.
Where is it written, anywhere, that the media/press has a duty to tell the truth?
It's not, but that comes down to a matter of ethics and integrity. If you become a propagandist for either party you no longer a journalist or reporter. So it is up to the individual citizen to discern the information for themselves. Problem is most people are to lazy to actually question what is reported
-
THis doesn't answer the question. Freedom of the press to say anything they want is supported by the Consitution. Yea, we're seeing that :) They have that, and they're all making up shit left and right to prove that.
Where is it written, anywhere, that the media/press has a duty to tell the truth?
The press' job originally was to keep the government honest. Now it seems, they've made their job to try and shape the politics of this country. Which, I guess is inevitable. Eventually people are going to make their way into power so that they can try and push what they think life should be.
-
It's not, but that comes down to a matter of ethics and integrity. If you become a propagandist for either party you no longer a journalist or reporter. So it is up to the individual citizen to discern the information for themselves. Problem is most people are to lazy to actually question what is reported
Says who?
Integrity is only judged by the viewer. People watch "The View" and think those scandalous idiots have integrity because they agree with them. People watch those absolute fake phone idiots on FOX & friends and say they have integrity because they agree with them.
The networks can put on whatever they want. Integrity doesn't matter a bit. People will watch fox or msnbc knowing full well they cheat. They don't care. Romney could steal the election tomorrow, and 33 would clap for it- because his goal (defeating obama) matters way more than 'election integrity'. Right, 33?
Likewise, the networks don't care about integrity. They care about money.
"THE JOB" of the networks isn't to "maintain integrity". They'll talk like it is, but does any of us believe it? The MINUTE we are all about step back, stop being butthurt about networks lying, and just admit they're all partisan hack entertainers driven by profit, we'll all be wiser and happier.
-
The press' job originally was to keep the government honest. Now it seems, they've made their job to try and shape the politics of this country. Which, I guess is inevitable. Eventually people are going to make their way into power so that they can try and push what they think life should be.
In what year/decade/century was this the case? And when did it change?
I thought that Brady photog was known for moving bodies for more dramatic pics during the civil war? We have plenty of evidence that "THE MEDIA" was used for political propaganda purposes going back to WWII at least -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
Does it all come down to this.... We THINK the media should be about the truth and integrity, but in reality they're just about profit?
-
Says who?
Integrity is only judged by the viewer. People watch "The View" and think those scandalous idiots have integrity because they agree with them. People watch those absolute fake phone idiots on FOX & friends and say they have integrity because they agree with them.
The networks can put on whatever they want. Integrity doesn't matter a bit. People will watch fox or msnbc knowing full well they cheat. They don't care. Romney could steal the election tomorrow, and 33 would clap for it- because his goal (defeating obama) matters way more than 'election integrity'. Right, 33?
Likewise, the networks don't care about integrity. They care about money.
"THE JOB" of the networks isn't to "maintain integrity". They'll talk like it is, but does any of us believe it? The MINUTE we are all about step back, stop being butthurt about networks lying, and just admit they're all partisan hack entertainers driven by profit, we'll all be wiser and happier.
I was speaking of the individual reported/journalist...............
I don't watch the "news", I know what it is, and don't care for it.
-
I was speaking of the individual reported/journalist...............
I don't watch the "news", I know what it is, and don't care for it.
Those reporters have to write what their editors tell them.
Editors are driven by profit.
MSNBC could find proof of an obama scandal, and could sit on it til after election - perfectly legal, right?
-
In what year/decade/century was this the case? And when did it change?
I thought that Brady photog was known for moving bodies for more dramatic pics during the civil war? We have plenty of evidence that "THE MEDIA" was used for political propaganda purposes going back to WWII at least -
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_in_the_United_States
Does it all come down to this.... We THINK the media should be about the truth and integrity, but in reality they're just about profit?
Journalistic integrity bro. The point of a free press was that it should be able to report on any and all dirty deeds the government tries to pull (and they did). Of course there are examples throughout history where things have been fucked... But as with all things, the progression has it so that its just as straight divided as party line as politics.
Guess thats inevitable when everyone gets their news from 3-4 main sources. Back before the days of mass media it was a lot easier for them to have journalistic integrity. Now, too much money and power at stake, and they're all vying for it. They'll only blow the whistle if it suits their agenda. Back in the day, you'd always find someone who would run the story. Today, not so much.
-
Journalistic integrity bro.
What does that mean? Where is it written, where FOX and MSNBC hav agreed? Where is it enforced? Any punishment?
It is essentially an honor system for an undefined code, completely ignoring the billions of dollars these firms have at stake by 'pleasing' their base viewership and duty to advertisers?
It may have mattered when it was one dude with a printing press in the olde' west, but we have grown past that. The minute that dude sold one ounce of advertising space, he became a mouthpiece, a tool.
Can we define what journalistic integrity is? Or just an unexplained, unenforced, really nice 'theory' that isn't in practice anymore?
I'm trying to get to the bottom line - are we silly being butthurt by media lies? We have plenty of proof they lie - and are never punished. Is this just butthurtedness on our side, for being naive?
-
It is essentially an honor system for an undefined code.
Correct. Just as warriors followed codes for centuries on the honor system, and being held accountable by each other. It was called PRIDE.
And it isn't and undefined code - the code was that the media wasn't supposed to take sides - they were supposed to report FACTS without being biased, and let the readers make up their mind.
-
Correct. Just as warriors followed codes for centuries on the honor system, and being held accountable by each other. It was called PRIDE.
And it isn't and undefined code - the code was that the media wasn't supposed to take sides - they were supposed to report FACTS without being biased, and let the readers make up their mind.
In my opinion, billions in ad revenue have kinda tossed this 'pride' thing out the window.
Where was this code originally defined? Is there a hippo oath for reporters? (there might be, i'm not trolling) - but who writes it, where do they sign, and how enforced?
My belief is that cable news is nothing more than entertainment now. Huge $, huge entertainment. Just like snooki on mtv. That's it. I see no proof to the contrary.
-
In my opinion, billions in ad revenue have kinda tossed this 'pride' thing out the window.
Where was this code originally defined? Is there a hippo oath for reporters? (there might be, i'm not trolling) - but who writes it, where do they sign, and how enforced?
My belief is that cable news is nothing more than entertainment now. Huge $, huge entertainment. Just like snooki on mtv. That's it. I see no proof to the contrary.
No I agree with you. Thats what I was saying ealier, its inevitable with the fact that they are huge semi-monopolies now, and that there is too much power and money at stake. They stopped giving a damn about their original intention long ago.
Think on this for a minute -
“The press should be not only a collective propagandist and a collective agitator, but also a collective organizer of the masses”
-Vladimir Lenin
-
How about the media report news and stop trying to make it and shape it?
-
thanks. I don't even know what "their original intention long ago" was.
I think the minute that old guy with the printing press was offered $2 to paint the sheriff nicely in print, or free drinks/BJs at the brothel for not printing a story about the whorehouse, it went out the window.
in police, medicine, teaching - all of these fields have codes of professional ethics - and you lose your doctor job very quickly if you do surgery while on vacation in mexico or lose your teaching job if you give lap dances on saturday night.
But journalism? I don't see any sort of enforcement for violations. And the $ for them is WAY more than from these other fields, which are monitored and enforced much more closely.
-
thanks. I don't even know what "their original intention long ago" was.
I think the minute that old guy with the printing press was offered $2 to paint the sheriff nicely in print, or free drinks/BJs at the brothel for not printing a story about the whorehouse, it went out the window.
in police, medicine, teaching - all of these fields have codes of professional ethics - and you lose your doctor job very quickly if you do surgery while on vacation in mexico or lose your teaching job if you give lap dances on saturday night.
But journalism? I don't see any sort of enforcement for violations. And the $ for them is WAY more than from these other fields, which are monitored and enforced much more closely.
If you think this then why are you so quick to defer to them and their "expert" judgments on political issues? You, knowing that what they print is biased, have no problem posting stuff from MSNBC and the like.
Are you hypocritical in everything else you do in life, too?
-
How about the media report news and stop trying to make it and shape it?
oh, like a Reuters news network? That shit would get horrible ratings. It woudln't be profitable. It would go off the air.
If you don't exaggerate, over-react, play gotcha, and sell HOPE to viewers... your ass doesn't make $ in the media game.
-
oh, like a Reuters news network? That shit would get horrible ratings. It woudln't be profitable. It would go off the air.
If you don't exaggerate, over-react, play gotcha, and sell HOPE to viewers... your ass doesn't make $ in the media game.
Reuters reports the news? They shape it, too, dickhead.
Every day I view you as more and more of an intellectual midget who stuffs his skinny/fat face with McDonald's while watching MSNBC all day.
-
If you think this then why are you so quick to defer to them and their "expert" judgments on political issues? You, knowing that what they print is biased, have no problem posting stuff from MSNBC and the like.
Are you hypocritical in everything else you do in life, too?
I like to share and discuss their viewpoints. There are times when FOX has it absolutely right - like on F&F. And there are times when MSNBC has it right - Cain was truly and honestly shady as fck and not prepared for the job of POTUS on foreign policy. The networks do get things right. And there are times when Breaking Bad rings true or Dancing with the Stars delivers some really quality dance moves.
I'm just trying to establish/determine if the media is nothing but entertainment - and there is no real code for integrity in this big $ age?
-
oh, like a Reuters news network? That shit would get horrible ratings. It woudln't be profitable. It would go off the air.
If you don't exaggerate, over-react, play gotcha, and sell HOPE to viewers... your ass doesn't make $ in the media game.
::) ::)
-
Reuters reports the news? They shape it, too, dickhead.
Every day I view you as more and more of an intellectual midget who stuffs his skinny/fat face with McDonald's while watching MSNBC all day.
Yes they do (I was trying to think of the most boring, dry, bland news source.) If you have one more fact based, share it. I can't think of any.
So we are in agreement that every single media outlet 'shapes' the news, dude? And by shaping, you mean sprinkling some lies or shadiness into the mix to make it sell better?
-
Yes they do (I was trying to think of the most boring, dry, bland news source.) If you have one more fact based, share it. I can't think of any.
So we are in agreement that every single media outlet 'shapes' the news, dude? And by shaping, you mean sprinkling some lies or shadiness into the mix to make it sell better?
Please - Reuters is one of the worst sometimes advancing propaganda for obama
-
Please - Reuters is one of the worst sometimes advancing propaganda for obama
okay. I am sure youre right. I dont read them. I was trying to think of ANY news orgs that aren't skewed. Can you think of any?
the whole point of the thread was "what is their job".
Since they all seem to skew, and their motive for profit, I guess that explains it. Their job is to sell commercials by shaping explanations of events to keep their viewers happy. Right?
-
okay. I am sure youre right. I dont read them. I was trying to think of ANY news orgs that aren't skewed. Can you think of any?
the whole point of the thread was "what is their job".
Since they all seem to skew, and their motive for profit, I guess that explains it. Their job is to sell commercials by shaping explanations of events to keep their viewers happy. Right?
Their original job, is to report only the FACTS and let the viewer decide what to think.
Media and Government in bed, historically not awesome. /Robert Downey Jr.
-
Their original job, is to report only the FACTS and let the viewer decide what to think.
Media and Government in bed, historically not awesome. /Robert Downey Jr.
I'm trying to figure out WHEN this was the original job, and when it changed. My pessimistic theory is that it has always been talked about, and always been corrupted. But I could be wrong.
-
I'm trying to figure out WHEN this was the original job, and when it changed. My pessimistic theory is that it has always been talked about, and always been corrupted. But I could be wrong.
You're correct for the most part, but there where so many other outlets that could, and would, correct them. They kept each other mostly honest. Note - I am speaking of its intended purpose IN THIS COUNTRY.
-
Correct. Just as warriors followed codes for centuries on the honor system, and being held accountable by each other. It was called PRIDE.
And it isn't and undefined code - the code was that the media wasn't supposed to take sides - they were supposed to report FACTS without being biased, and let the readers make up their mind.
This +1
-
To make money for their shareholders, of course. Not to keep it real, not to be fair and balanced, not to maintain any level of 'journalistic integrity'.
How do they make more money by not reporting black on white crime and painting whites as criminals / racists.
Their systematic tear down of whiteness will in the long run have a negative effect on the wealth of these media outlets. So why are they pursuing this strategy if it is just about dollars?
-
To report the news.
To keep those in power, and those that have authority, honest.
-
I'm trying to figure out WHEN this was the original job, and when it changed. My pessimistic theory is that it has always been talked about, and always been corrupted. But I could be wrong.
When cable news came out and the nation stopped receiving its news one man anchoring the "national" nightly news, just like he has since your parents were your age.
When it's up to Walter Cronkite to report the news to everyone, he has to uphold "journalistic integrity" so that there isn't a personal backlash against him...forcing the network to find a replacement or lose half their ad revenue and viewers.
When nearly every person in the country gets their news from a single source, his integrity as a PERSON is on the line to report the news without bias. When he paints a biased picture, it reflects poorly on him. He becomes a person who lied to the nation for his own selfish agenda.
When cable news came out and people stopped getting their news from a single guy that they grew up watching every night, all that changed. When cable news lies, it isn't a "person" who's betraying you for a selfish agenda, it's some nameless corporate conglomerate feeding you garbage...which you expect from faceless business entities. And since news really happened, some version of it must be the truth...so when that agenda falls in line with YOUR personal agenda...then it's the "true" version of news. The ones telling lies are those hacks at the OTHER news network.
When you're no longer responsible for giving impartial information to EVERYONE, you are suddenly responsible for getting ANYONE to come to you for their news.
If you remain impartial, you become boring...and people leave your broadcast for the one that gives them the news the way they want to hear it.
When Ron Burgundy was replaced by false youtube video preview screen cap promises of anchorwomen holding open their blouses...journalistic integrity went bye-bye.
-
at this stage, i would swear that some meaning could be found, to show what's said to attract the most money for media, also provides a vehicle toward a much nastier goal.
we know that "left" and "right" can each lead to fascism. so it seems that by playing two such "sides" in full opposition mode, it creates a powerful ratcheting effect, that causes each side to direct itself toward its realization of fascism, ultimately depositing the unwitting citizens from each "side" into a complete and total state of fascism (which everyone should know becomes quite difficult to leave once it is achieved).
i would strongly suggest that the staggering list of laws passed in the last 11 years, which are absolutely fascist in every way, are not coincidental to a medium that encourages such full opposition mode.
quite frankly, i'd say we are being played as fools.
-
-
When cable news came out and the nation stopped receiving its news one man anchoring the "national" nightly news, just like he has since your parents were your age.
When it's up to Walter Cronkite to report the news to everyone, he has to uphold "journalistic integrity" so that there isn't a personal backlash against him...forcing the network to find a replacement or lose half their ad revenue and viewers.
When nearly every person in the country gets their news from a single source, his integrity as a PERSON is on the line to report the news without bias. When he paints a biased picture, it reflects poorly on him. He becomes a person who lied to the nation for his own selfish agenda.
When cable news came out and people stopped getting their news from a single guy that they grew up watching every night, all that changed. When cable news lies, it isn't a "person" who's betraying you for a selfish agenda, it's some nameless corporate conglomerate feeding you garbage...which you expect from faceless business entities. And since news really happened, some version of it must be the truth...so when that agenda falls in line with YOUR personal agenda...then it's the "true" version of news. The ones telling lies are those hacks at the OTHER news network.
When you're no longer responsible for giving impartial information to EVERYONE, you are suddenly responsible for getting ANYONE to come to you for their news.
If you remain impartial, you become boring...and people leave your broadcast for the one that gives them the news the way they want to hear it.
When Ron Burgundy was replaced by false youtube video preview screen cap promises of anchorwomen holding open their blouses...journalistic integrity went bye-bye.
great analysis, thanks. ya make good points.
-
at this stage, i would swear that some meaning could be found, to show what's said to attract the most money for media, also provides a vehicle toward a much nastier goal.
we know that "left" and "right" can each lead to fascism. so it seems that by playing two such "sides" in full opposition mode, it creates a powerful ratcheting effect, that causes each side to direct itself toward its realization of fascism, ultimately depositing the unwitting citizens from each "side" into a complete and total state of fascism (which everyone should know becomes quite difficult to leave once it is achieved).
i would strongly suggest that the staggering list of laws passed in the last 11 years, which are absolutely fascist in every way, are not coincidental to a medium that encourages such full opposition mode.
quite frankly, i'd say we are being played as fools.
Boom.
-
Boom.
thanks, bro. i knew that you'd be someone who "gets" it.
-
so...this "money above all else" quest, that we are supposed to happily shrug off as the american way, despite the fact we are talking about news-reporting of all things, seems to provide quite a convenient side mechanism for elitism/fascism. what a coincidence.
thanks for jogging my brain, 240.
-
at this stage, i would swear that some meaning could be found, to show what's said to attract the most money for media, also provides a vehicle toward a much nastier goal.
we know that "left" and "right" can each lead to fascism. so it seems that by playing two such "sides" in full opposition mode, it creates a powerful ratcheting effect, that causes each side to direct itself toward its realization of fascism, ultimately depositing the unwitting citizens from each "side" into a complete and total state of fascism (which everyone should know becomes quite difficult to leave once it is achieved).
i would strongly suggest that the staggering list of laws passed in the last 11 years, which are absolutely fascist in every way, are not coincidental to a medium that encourages such full opposition mode.
quite frankly, i'd say we are being played as fools.
Joseph Goebbels is laughing his ass off in hell
-
Joseph Goebbels is laughing his ass off in hell
Goddamn Nazi's.
-
(http://nationalpostnews.files.wordpress.com/2012/09/netanyahubomb.jpg?w=620)