I've noticed a lot of posts, opinions, blogs, etcetera, portray the media as evil and/or the cause of problems. Now, I wish to know whether or not any of you agree or disagree with the media being evil and to state your reasons why.
The Duke of Juke
Retired Forum Staff
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
- Joined
- Dec 24, 2002
- Messages
- 2,852
- Best answers
- 0
Maybe not so much evil. Let's see... in Denver one of the major supporters of marijuana legalization was killed last weekend. The local news stations covered it for about a few minutes, while they talked about Britney's rehab and head shaving for about 20 minutes.
Blah....
Blah....
New Member
- Joined
- May 30, 2003
- Messages
- 842
- Best answers
- 0
I wouldn't go so far as to say it's an evil force. But I think it's the main reason and cause for the dumbing down of this country. It's relentless focus on stardom, celebrities, has a negative influence on the average population.
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
- Joined
- Jan 27, 2005
- Messages
- 196
- Best answers
- 0
Yeah, that's so true.
i once read a book wich i recommend to everyone here :
everything bad is good for you - forgot the author tho lol it explained that the media ( tv radio internet games) are good for us
Example:
the dutch militairy is searching for gamers because they have better hand eye coordination.
everything bad is good for you - forgot the author tho lol it explained that the media ( tv radio internet games) are good for us
Example:
the dutch militairy is searching for gamers because they have better hand eye coordination.
Member
- Joined
- Apr 9, 2005
- Messages
- 475
- Best answers
- 0
I think the media is as evil as the cougar that eats a man. I think it's about as intelligent as the idiot who lives in a disaster zone and rebuilds every month after a disaster only to have his house destroyed every 2 months after rebuilding. And then acts like it was all a big surprise.
They grasp at every illogical explanation and impression for everything, and ignore the logical side of everything.
So, evil? No. But, ignorant? Yes.
They grasp at every illogical explanation and impression for everything, and ignore the logical side of everything.
So, evil? No. But, ignorant? Yes.
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 2,490
- Best answers
- 0
To be straight with you, most of us actually IN the media do not want to do these things.
It is those who are in charge of our companies, those who sit on the piles of money, that want us to milk things, twist things, etc.
Oftentimes, there is little we can do. :0\
And yes...Fox News is, in fact, the devil.
It is those who are in charge of our companies, those who sit on the piles of money, that want us to milk things, twist things, etc.
Oftentimes, there is little we can do. :0\
And yes...Fox News is, in fact, the devil.
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
- Joined
- Nov 14, 2003
- Messages
- 3,974
- Best answers
- 0
the funniest thing is, if you DON'T want to read about this stuff, then your newspaper is about 30 pages too thin.
you'll usually find, that if NOBODY was interested in a particular subject, then NO paper would write about it.
in england, the example would be:
The Sun - A pretty entertaining newspaper, with witty articles and such, lots of pictures, very little informative text.
The Times - About 200% thicker, full of words, with almost no pictures at all, lots of intelligent writing and articulate thought gone into each subject, usually politically based.
you're reading the wrong news.
you'll usually find, that if NOBODY was interested in a particular subject, then NO paper would write about it.
in england, the example would be:
The Sun - A pretty entertaining newspaper, with witty articles and such, lots of pictures, very little informative text.
The Times - About 200% thicker, full of words, with almost no pictures at all, lots of intelligent writing and articulate thought gone into each subject, usually politically based.
you're reading the wrong news.
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,094
- Best answers
- 0
The media is all about the money. Even the friggin' news can get under some sponsoring coproration's thumb, which is something I detest. Because when someobody funds you, they have a huge say in what you can and can't report, and also how to portray the funding corporation. I was on my high school's newspaper for two years, and I can tell you that the only objective news is the news that is self-funded. We had to fund ourselves just to print the school paper because we didn't want to be censored. If you want unbiased news, make sure it's self funded.
Unfortunately, disasters, murders and crimes however petty are more immediately important to the public. You know, the old rule: if it bleeds, it leads. And of course, being dramatic also attracts viewers. Before the 90's, words like "disaster", and "catastrophe" were rarely ever used. It's disgusting, really. People think the world is going to Hell. The media's constant reportings on crime tell the public, "Crime is rampant and on the rise!", when the reality is that crime in the U.S. has gone down by 10% over the last decade. But that doesn't attract viewers, does it?
And don't think they're alone in it either. In some of the worst cases, like the Global Warming farse, politicians, the media and lawyers influence the people in ways in which to benefit themselves, in a circel referred to by some as the Politico-Legal-Media Complex, or "PLM". Can you imagine how much money lawyers have made off pointless lawsuits because the media informed the public that something was bad for them?
Here's a great example: A few years ago people became terrified of their powerlines because they had heard the media report that the magnetic fields were potentially harmful to human life. There was a huge lawsuit that never got off the ground, but the lawyers made a killing.
Then, no more than 2 years later, people become fascinated and want to try for themselves the "healing power of magnetic fields". Yes, the same damned thing they were terified of a few years ago and now they strap the things to their heads or whatever every night. No memory at all! It's pathetic really! The overwhelming public can barely learn from it's mistakes because they can barely collectively remember what hapenned even a few years ago!
But, I digress. The media is everywhere and comes in several forms. In a way, the media is like the people. It's not inherently good or inherently bad, but it's how the individuals operate which determines what or who they are. In general I think it's a good thing, but I feel we're reaching a point where despite having the technology to hold conversations between several people from anywhere in the world at once, we've not yet mastered exactly how to control this beast. Freedom of speech and expression make the media open to all who would use it, and so we have to find a way to identify between information, misinformation and disinformation. What we need is a single chain of self-funded, objective news stations which share info between each other and get people the facts of what's important locally and in the world with utmost accuracey.
Unfortunately, disasters, murders and crimes however petty are more immediately important to the public. You know, the old rule: if it bleeds, it leads. And of course, being dramatic also attracts viewers. Before the 90's, words like "disaster", and "catastrophe" were rarely ever used. It's disgusting, really. People think the world is going to Hell. The media's constant reportings on crime tell the public, "Crime is rampant and on the rise!", when the reality is that crime in the U.S. has gone down by 10% over the last decade. But that doesn't attract viewers, does it?
And don't think they're alone in it either. In some of the worst cases, like the Global Warming farse, politicians, the media and lawyers influence the people in ways in which to benefit themselves, in a circel referred to by some as the Politico-Legal-Media Complex, or "PLM". Can you imagine how much money lawyers have made off pointless lawsuits because the media informed the public that something was bad for them?
Here's a great example: A few years ago people became terrified of their powerlines because they had heard the media report that the magnetic fields were potentially harmful to human life. There was a huge lawsuit that never got off the ground, but the lawyers made a killing.
Then, no more than 2 years later, people become fascinated and want to try for themselves the "healing power of magnetic fields". Yes, the same damned thing they were terified of a few years ago and now they strap the things to their heads or whatever every night. No memory at all! It's pathetic really! The overwhelming public can barely learn from it's mistakes because they can barely collectively remember what hapenned even a few years ago!
But, I digress. The media is everywhere and comes in several forms. In a way, the media is like the people. It's not inherently good or inherently bad, but it's how the individuals operate which determines what or who they are. In general I think it's a good thing, but I feel we're reaching a point where despite having the technology to hold conversations between several people from anywhere in the world at once, we've not yet mastered exactly how to control this beast. Freedom of speech and expression make the media open to all who would use it, and so we have to find a way to identify between information, misinformation and disinformation. What we need is a single chain of self-funded, objective news stations which share info between each other and get people the facts of what's important locally and in the world with utmost accuracey.
New Member
💻 Oldtimer
- Joined
- Dec 3, 2002
- Messages
- 2,490
- Best answers
- 0
To England's credit, Axman, the American "legitimate" media is probably the worst corporately linked news industry in the world. It's pretty bad over here; I can recount many times when we have reshuffled the newspaper because advertisers who paid big money wanted it that way.
In fact the very size of our newspapers each week is made variable by our system...what decides the size is--you guessed it--how many ads are booked each week. There is a federal law that says if our publications are more than 70% advertising they are considered shoppers and thus different laws apply to them. So it's illegal for us to do this. Thus, we have a whole computer system designed around maximizing the amount of ads to exactly 70% of each paper's density while minimizing how much paper and ink we use to print each (using square inch counts: X scin on ads versus y scin of editorial space). Where color pictures go is decided entirely on where the color ads have to go.
I've seen these trends at every paper I've ever been at. It only worsens at big chains, as they begin cutting corners and cross-selling ads to make extra scratch.
Each town paper numbers a staff totalling 3: An Editor, a Reporter, and an Assistant Editor (who is half Editor, half Reporter, basically). Many towns only have an Editor and a Reporter. I do layout design for multiple papers at a time in my department; we number only 5 total (4 and a half if you count the retarded dude).
Conversely, the marketing department has over 200 people in it. 200 commission-paid SUV-driving smug sons of *****es who make more money in an afternoon than I do in a week, 200 annoying broads who sit and flirt it up with old business owners on their little frakkin' headsets all day in order to get the libidinous choads to shell out 8000 bucks for a black and white picture that's 6 square inches in size and will ultimately accomplish nothing.
Either way I just wanted to make it clear, it's worth pointing out that at least in my industry (arguably the last remnant of pure news-driven industry there is), most of the actual editorial people don't want to do it the way they are forced to. In fact, they hate it. But they have people who force them into it, people who care less about journalistic integrity and more about the fat money pile they roll around in all day.
To those of us who care about journalistic integrity and the importance of the media in educating the masses, we think these people are just as much a bunch of douches as any non-media people would.
In fact the very size of our newspapers each week is made variable by our system...what decides the size is--you guessed it--how many ads are booked each week. There is a federal law that says if our publications are more than 70% advertising they are considered shoppers and thus different laws apply to them. So it's illegal for us to do this. Thus, we have a whole computer system designed around maximizing the amount of ads to exactly 70% of each paper's density while minimizing how much paper and ink we use to print each (using square inch counts: X scin on ads versus y scin of editorial space). Where color pictures go is decided entirely on where the color ads have to go.
It's worth noting that media types and news types are very different. At my job, the editors wish they could have more space and less or no ads, so they could just report everything and give everything appropriate space; they wish they had more reporters to cover more happenings; they universally hate ads and often ask if it's possible to move or alter the ad layouts to accomodate some vital breaking story, only to be laughed out of my department by my C-U-Next-Tuesday of a boss.
I've seen these trends at every paper I've ever been at. It only worsens at big chains, as they begin cutting corners and cross-selling ads to make extra scratch.
Each town paper numbers a staff totalling 3: An Editor, a Reporter, and an Assistant Editor (who is half Editor, half Reporter, basically). Many towns only have an Editor and a Reporter. I do layout design for multiple papers at a time in my department; we number only 5 total (4 and a half if you count the retarded dude).
Conversely, the marketing department has over 200 people in it. 200 commission-paid SUV-driving smug sons of *****es who make more money in an afternoon than I do in a week, 200 annoying broads who sit and flirt it up with old business owners on their little frakkin' headsets all day in order to get the libidinous choads to shell out 8000 bucks for a black and white picture that's 6 square inches in size and will ultimately accomplish nothing.
Either way I just wanted to make it clear, it's worth pointing out that at least in my industry (arguably the last remnant of pure news-driven industry there is), most of the actual editorial people don't want to do it the way they are forced to. In fact, they hate it. But they have people who force them into it, people who care less about journalistic integrity and more about the fat money pile they roll around in all day.
To those of us who care about journalistic integrity and the importance of the media in educating the masses, we think these people are just as much a bunch of douches as any non-media people would.
New Member
✔️ HL Verified
💻 Oldtimer
- Joined
- May 28, 2006
- Messages
- 1,094
- Best answers
- 0
@SaiyanPrideXIX: Hear, hear good man! And I can certainly tell you that working on a paper free of censorship is an amazing sort of freedom. My old high school paper, "The Shark Attack", was a bastion of media in good taste with integrity and objectivity. We had to support the paper's publishing by the sweat of our own brows (and we had a huge school with upwards of 4,000 students too), but damn was it rewarding, especially since the new Journalism instructor was so good at her job and had such an excellent moral center. I watched our once half-assed paper grow into an award winning publication which informed the readers greatly and kept the general majority of the students well informed on current events. It was also good to know that the students seemed to look forward to each new issue as we got better.
Personally, if so much as one major newspaper were to work the way we did, I'd be satisfied. If yuo can name a single well known publication which works like this, untainted by censorship and corporate corruption, I'd be satisfied for the time being.
Personally, if so much as one major newspaper were to work the way we did, I'd be satisfied. If yuo can name a single well known publication which works like this, untainted by censorship and corporate corruption, I'd be satisfied for the time being.
New Member
- Joined
- Sep 22, 2004
- Messages
- 565
- Best answers
- 0
lol nine tail demon fox news. ;D
Anyway, I do think they're evil, when it comes to war that is. If the country attacked by the NATO or marines tries to get a say at all that mess, "oops it seems we are having technical difficulties with the tape, we'll be right back after these commercials..." Technical difficulties MY ASS! >_> *kicks tv*
Seriously, it's very true. They can make that country look bad to the world in a blink. I hate CNN. I really do... GOD!
:EDIT:
Here's a fraction from the Bowling for Columbine documentary:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cnbxYYRW9Zk
It talks about how the media acts when ppl are in fear, making advertising profits grow, amongst a few other things.