The Media

Hey DD that was surprisingly funny.

As for the topic, like the media, I have an opinion on everything, and it is objective. I also have subjective opinions, based on what is good for me. Sometimes I even have experiences, which may influence what I believe is good for me... Now, the media - as MM pointed out - is the message. The meaning of the message is fairly clear to all - stuff happens, we'll tell you about it, based on what we in the media think is most important, most interesting, most useful - to you. We don't review Japanese language films because you aren't interested, and we don't sell them, therefore they are not important. Events in Burma probably won't be covered most days, unless there is a nutty American swimming to see that sexy sounding Aun Sung Soo Kyi - who is important because important people think so, because the Thai people voted for her to run things, and because her Dad used to run things.

Does media ownership matter? Yes, of course. Here in the UK we pretty much have to listen to the BBC, which is owned by everyone and no-one. It is extremely objective - presenters rarely dare openly show their partisan sympathies (on the whole, a good rule). There are other news sources, and indeed a wide range of newspapers - but if you prefer an openly 'liberal' or 'conservative' point of view on the radio or TV, you won't find it (even Sky TV is much more truly balanced than the Fox offering, owned by the same folks). On the other hand, none of the newspapers pretends to be non-partisan (although the news coverage is often surprisingly objective, as was often said of the pre-Murdoch Wall Street Journal).

DD perhaps unintentionally puts over the point - the headline is indeed the first slant on a story. The choice of words as well as the portrayal of the action in the headline is critical. Words with many syllables (which are frowned on) in themselves will push the 'objective' point of view to the left, while short, punchy words are the Right way to go. 'Con' signals right, 'Criminal' is leftie.

Even within the Beeb, and on just the radio, there is choice, even as to the tones of voices you'll hear. Populist Radio 5 live (News, Sports) is slightly shrill, while authoritative Radio 4 presenters have melodious reassuring tone qualities. (I dunno about the others, cause I don't listen to them - but I know they are different, Radio 1 chippy, Radio 2 mellow, Radio 3 even mellower).

Now, in the most general terms MSM wants to be just that - appealing to the main stream, the majority, to be inclusive. Folks to the right think it is rather unfair because it doesn't focus on their issues, talks down to them, and that it is supported by and large by a sinister left wing conspiracy against the middle class (which it is NOT; it is however a middle of the road conspiracy against the 'working' class). Folks to the left think the media is fair and objective - except when it is in the interest of the big companies to cover up a story, because all of those money making companies are in it together (well, I like that story, but I know it is NOT true - most of the time). In fact MSM is 'objective' - except when reporting on media related stories, of course - but it rarely covers up, mostly it just fails to uncover. Objective - in this sense - is nothing more than saying 'such and such is true' when it seems to be so. Of course, this does leave aside which part of the truth gets the stress. But by and large no-one is going to publish things which are false - and MSM also is pretty picky about only publishing things for which there is actual evidence to back up the story. The Times is still embarassed by having published the (faked) Hitler Diaries and for good reason.

Now, I love Amy Goodman and her news agenda. But I am aware that this is self-limiting, and assumes perhaps an interest in rebellious poets even beyond what I can always muster. Jon Stewart is funnier. But I can't expect Jon Stewart to have a team of ace reporters digging in to the activities - whether beneficial or nefarious - of the oil majors, the banks, and the communications giants. Sadly, these days, nobody does.

The US media operate under different rules from the rest of us. Anti-American blowhards actively rooting against US interests, even when they have to make things up (like Walter Cronkite) and even breaking laws (like Ricky Sanchez's hit and run manslaughter while driving drunk) or endangering American troops (like Gerry Rivers) get away with it all and probably make more money than most conscientious, law-abiding citizens.

Yeah, NN....or like Rush Limbaugh's illegal oxycontin scams and illegal viagra escapade and Bill O'Reilly's 'I wanna rub a falafel on your body in the shower' court case and Glenn Becks Vicks 4 instant tears crap.

They're all guilty of something....

Exactly.

You ever notice how liberals always mention Rush but never bring up Kennedy's illegal Oxycontin issue? LOL I blame the media for that too!

Which Kennedy? If you mean JFK's drug abuse then yeah...but it was a different time and the media also didn't report on his adultery either. Can't say that's true anymore after Clinton, If you're talking about a different Kennedy then I'm in the dark on this one.

But yeah, of course I'm going to bring up Rush and the other guys conservatives conveniently forget are honest or ethical.

Besides, I thought maybe you'd just forgotten those other guys in your haste to expose the liberal media dudes, so I was just trying to bring some balance to the 'let's review credentials of the mouthpieces out there' conversation. Who says providing balance can't be fun.....

Press Freedom Index 2009

Obama effect in US, while Europe continues to recede
Israel in free fall, Iran at gates of infernal trio

The United States has climbed 20 places in the rankings, from 40th to 20th, in just one year. Barack Obama’s election as president and the fact that he has a less hawkish approach than his predecessor have had a lot to do with this.

But this sharp rise concerns only the state of press freedom within the United States. President Obama may have been awarded the Nobel peace prize, but his country is still fighting two wars. Despite a slight improvement, the attitude of the United States towards the media in Iraq and Afghanistan is worrying. Several journalists were injured or arrested by the US military. One, Ibrahim Jassam, is still being held in Iraq.

http://www.rsf.org/en-classement1003-2009.html

I was referring to Patrick J. Kennedy (Teddy's son). The news about his Oxycontin issues surfaced about the same time as Rush, but largely ignored even though he is an elected representative who wrecked his car in Washington DC while driving under the influence of prescription drugs.

OH! I remember that...you are correct. That was but a blip on the screen and he, like EVERY Kennedy, walked away, no more said. JFK was a speed freak.....or something like that. Plus I don't think oxycontin existed during his life.

You won't catch me defending privileged little shits like that. In fact, as much as I dug John Jr., I didn't think it was right to send the damn military out to scout for his plane since I doubt I or any other average person would receive the same type of no holds barred rescue.

Having said all that, because we didn't get much info on that incident, I'm not certain it's comparable to Rush beyond the 'special treatment' by prosecutors. I seem to be under the impression that Rush was actively pursuing the drug for awhile fake scripts. So we have an isolated incident of abuse versus ongoing criminal activity. Plus then Jabba gets caught with somebody else's junk jumper (viagra) pills coming back from the Bahamas.....We have a repeat offender here.

Now.....in the interest of providing y'all with a chuckle, here's Fox's top 10: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2009/10/20/the-ten-most-egregious-fo_n_327140.html

Blondes are more aggressive than brunettes 'because they attract more male attention'

Read more: http://www.dailymail.co.uk/femail/article-1243964/Blondes-aggressive-brunettes-attract-male-attention.html#ixzz0e2YhefbT

And more interesting:
http://www.blogher.com/did-aaron-sell-really-say-blonds-are-more-warlike
http://trueslant.com/ryansager/2010/01/18/science-reporting-gone-wild/

and a response from the author of the study the DailyMail cites:
http://www.psych.ucsb.edu/research/cep/ResponseToTimes.html