Historum - History Forums  

Go Back   Historum - History Forums > Themes in History > Art and Cultural History
Register Forums Blogs Social Groups Mark Forums Read

Art and Cultural History Art and Cultural History Forum - Music, Literature, Mythology, Visual Arts, Sports, Popular Culture


Reply
 
LinkBack Thread Tools Display Modes
Old November 12th, 2012, 08:34 AM   #11

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
Funyuns
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 6,311
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
Media, or mainstream media, used to not, but now does, has a political agenda to carry out.
The networks control what news stories, or how often, people see. if they want to go
after a particular cause, they can either make that cause look great or bad. They control
the power cords.
And you certainly don't want to be on the receiving end of all the cooked up stories. < Notice the emphasis was intentionally not on the news.
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Remove Ads
Old November 12th, 2012, 10:41 AM   #12

The merchant of Venice's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Jul 2012
From: .
Posts: 1,951

Can a non agenda pursuing media really exist?
The merchant of Venice is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 02:07 PM   #13

beetle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: St. Louis
Posts: 3,296

I agree with Ancientgeezer and Spartacuss. In the US there was also such a thing known as "yellow journalism." The past was not a nostalgic era of unbiased reporting. Quite the opposite!

I think we modern citizens have great advantages over folks in the past because we have vastly far more sources (as Crystal posted.) These include video and eye-witness accounts of events provided, not by media, but by citizens all over the world. Just 40 years ago the mass TV media in the US consisted of only 3 networks. A CBS correspondent later told how stories were selected for the evening news telecast at his network. If they had film, that story would be reported. Stories without film would not air on the telecast, no matter how much more significant those stories may have been. We now have a huge variety of sources to go to get news. I think one failing of current US media is how little reporting they do about things going on in the rest of the world outside the US. Well, fortunately I can turn to the BBC or some other source for that. That's a huge advantage over what folks could do in the past.

Entertainment "news" has unfortunately become a huge part of "hard" or real news on telecasts. When I see the lead story of a news telecast being about a celebrity, well ... the terrific and prescient 1976 movie Network predicted this would happen. This prediction was made back in the 1970s.

Our one, major, local newspaper is owned by a corporation based in Iowa (the corporation is currently entering bankruptcy proceedings.) Despite corporate ownership, the paper's reporters have provided terrific investigative reports over a wide spectrum of matters which of course include instances of corrupt corporate practices, in matters of both business and things going on in the state legislature. The paper, like many in the media, rail against the outrageous pay and "golden parachutes" enjoyed by so many corporate executives, and annually provides a list of the pay and perks of local execs. Lee Enterprises, which owns the newspaper, is not spared from being grilled by the paper's columnists. The main effect of the corporate ownership of the paper has not been in regard to what stories are reported, but in regard to staffing and the functioning of the paper. Print media has suffered huge losses in advertising revenue since the rise of the internet (Newsweek recently converted to becoming only an online publication.) No doubt, in the face of such losses, family-owned newspapers would also be cutting staff or shutting down completely. A major loss of revenue for newspapers has been the Classified Ads section. People now place their ads online. Who wants to bother reading the small print of the Classified Ads section when one can just go to Craigslist or elsewhere?

Lastly, in regard to media bias: All media, big and small, have editorial boards. This is where opinions, not news, are expressed, including Letters to the Editor. Editorial boards, like network honchos, have their biases, and they consistently express these. And if we don't like the opinions of a certain media outlet, we can select a different outlet. Don't like Fox? Watch CNN. Or whatever. We modern folks have a zilion options.

This may be a controversial paragraph. I disagree with folks who claim people are manipulated by mass media. Do people go on about major stories reported by media? Yes. But this doesn't mean the mass media has changed peoples' opinions. To claim otherwise is sort of patronizing. It's why many in the past, such as aristocrats and those who supported "enlightened despots" didn't trust democracy. They didn't think common citizens were able to govern themselves. After all, they were the "rabble", right? An irresponsible rabble easily manipulated, right? They required persons of superior breeding and intellect to govern them, right? Wrong.

When I hear some folks talk about the power of the mass media to controll or manipulate people, I'm reminded of the things aristocrats used to say about their citizenry.
beetle is offline  
Old November 14th, 2012, 08:55 PM   #14

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
Funyuns
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 6,311
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by beetle View Post

This may be a controversial paragraph. I disagree with folks who claim people are manipulated by mass media. Do people go on about major stories reported by media? Yes. But this doesn't mean the mass media has changed peoples' opinions. To claim otherwise is sort of patronizing. It's why many in the past, such as aristocrats and those who supported "enlightened despots" didn't trust democracy. They didn't think common citizens were able to govern themselves. After all, they were the "rabble", right? An irresponsible rabble easily manipulated, right? They required persons of superior breeding and intellect to govern them, right? Wrong.
It's a fine position to take, unless your beliefs are constantly on the receiving end of the ignorance based stereotypical firing line. They lead, people follow. Says I, the neanderthal, from the state of redneck, in the United States of Jesusland.

Just saying....
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 01:15 AM   #15

Ancientgeezer's Avatar
Revisionist
 
Joined: Nov 2011
From: The Dustbin, formerly, Garden of England
Posts: 5,311

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
It's a fine position to take, unless your beliefs are constantly on the receiving end of the ignorance based stereotypical firing line. They lead, people follow. Says I, the neanderthal, from the state of redneck, in the United States of Jesusland.

Just saying....
It may have been Rupert or one of the other Murdochs, but it was stated at the recent UK Parliamentary enquiry into the Press that "Newspapers reflect the opinions of their readers, not the other way around".
Ancientgeezer is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 02:09 AM   #16

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
Funyuns
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 6,311
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by Ancientgeezer View Post
It may have been Rupert or one of the other Murdochs, but it was stated at the recent UK Parliamentary enquiry into the Press that "Newspapers reflect the opinions of their readers, not the other way around".
This doesn't just concern Murdoch's media empire. He represents the same thing, just a different boat. They have the power to freely inform like never before and yet... would rather entertain a regional bias at the expense of a truth for a story they say they respect by reporting it objectively (And sometimes to create one out of thin air: I'm thinking of NBC's shameful Muslim plant at a Nascar event in a southern state.) To me the current state of the media is simply appalling!
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 07:20 AM   #17

tjadams's Avatar
Epicurean
 
Joined: Mar 2009
From: Texas
Posts: 25,369
Blog Entries: 6

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
It's a fine position to take, unless your beliefs are constantly on the receiving end of the ignorance based stereotypical firing line. They lead, people follow. Says I, the neanderthal, from the state of redneck, in the United States of Jesusland.

Just saying....
You're correct. I watch two different, unnamed news outlets, and in
30 minutes, the two stations might have the same stories, but they
are presented in different order, different amounts of time spent on them
and some are not covered at all. One network will take a negative story,
directed at their target audience, and play it everyday for a week, while the
one will address it, but not dwell on it. They slow, hypnotic message is
beamed out to a targeted audience that believes the network they are
watching while not believing the other.
tjadams is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 08:42 AM   #18

beetle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: St. Louis
Posts: 3,296

Quote:
Originally Posted by Panthera tigris altaica View Post
It's a fine position to take, unless your beliefs are constantly on the receiving end of the ignorance based stereotypical firing line. They lead, people follow. Says I, the neanderthal, from the state of redneck, in the United States of Jesusland.

Just saying....
I do understand what you are saying. Ever since the 1970s, persons of certain beliefs or politics have been the subject of ridicule in cultural entertainments. A standard prop of comedy has been the conservative (this goes all the way back to the Frank Burns character in MASH, Archie Bunker in All in the Family, and perhaps even back to Sinclair Lewis, Jack London, Mark Twain, etc.) Apparently, there is no such thing as a hypocrite liberal, or a liberal who does not know better than the "rabble" who obviously are incapable of the wisdom of the much higher-minded liberal.

Further, a phenomenon occurred in the US. During the heyday of the big 3 TV networks, there was no voice for political conservatives on the lone 3 outlets for the nightly news broadcasts. CBS may have been the worse in this regard. (I'll never forget when the returns kept coming in indicating a Reagan landslide in 1980, Dan Rather seemed to sink into a deeper and deeper funk during the CBS telecast. Despite years of portraying Reagan as a "war monger", "cowboy", as well as other attempts to portray him as nothing more than a caricature or a superficial stereotype, Reagan won not one, but two landslide elections. So much for the power and influence of mass media.) The phenomenon which occurred is that, as conservatives had no television outlet, they turned to radio. Conservatives now dominate talk radio. They created an alternative to what was then the TV mass media.

In our comtemporary time, we have many, many alternatives. Persons who hold beliefs which are not popular in the vanilla mass cultural entertainment which constantly insists everyone should believe the same thing and dress the same way, those persons have created their own very successful entertainment outlets in a variety of medias. Don't like MTV or pop music culture? You've got a zillion alternatives. In regard to sports, our mass media would have us think that football and baseball are the most popular sports for Americans. Actually, it's NASCAR racing.
-------------

Certainly there is a culture of mass entertainment which bombards us and which insists we should all hold the same set of beliefs and opinions. However, to think this may be more effective than what it really is, well, that overlooks the reality of life beyond the superficial bombardment. Is anyone going to vote for a certain political candidate just because he/she receives Madonna's endorsement? And for all the prolonged ridicule in entertainment of persons of certain beliefs or opinions, how effective has that been? Not much, actually. Bush II was ridiculed and caricaturized nearly as much as Reagan, but did that stop either from winning 4 elections? So much for the power and influence of mass media.
---------------

I do disagree with anyone who claims that someone who doesn't hold their beliefs and opinions as someone vulnerable to being led by the nose. This is a consistent claim from both liberal and conservative pundits and cliques. After all, there must be a reason why those someones don't understand the "truths" which I understand!

The old USSR had a habit of considering persons who didn't agree with the party "truths" to have something obviously mentally wrong with them, and shipped such persons off to sanitariums (or worse.) Other regimes made use of "re-education" camps. In our society there is a tendency to claim that those who don't hold our beliefs are subject to the manipulations of "mass media" or other propaganda. When the reality may be that those folks simply have different opinions or beliefs.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, such claims tend to be elitist. And I think they have little merit.
------------------

Panthera, I do know know what it's like to be part of a minority whose beliefs tend to be challenged or ridiculed, particularly in our entertainment culture. The US is huge and extremely pluralistic. There is something for everyone and every community or belief system. Pop cultural entertainments are just that, "pop" or superficial. People who reject pop culture have a vast variety of very successful alternatives. This situation is never or rarely reported by a national media outlet which chases only the most superficial and supposedly popular stories. Such an outlet also tends to obsess on the "hot" story of the moment, and then quickly switches to another "hot" story while completely forgetting the prior one. They're like ambulance chasers.

However, to claim that those who don't hold our opinions and beliefs must be subject to ignorant stereotypes or being led, well, that's the same claim those folks make against you because you don't share their beliefs or opinions. I think both claims are in error.
beetle is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 08:59 AM   #19

beetle's Avatar
Historian
 
Joined: Feb 2010
From: St. Louis
Posts: 3,296

Quote:
Originally Posted by tjadams View Post
They slow, hypnotic message is
beamed out to a targeted audience that believes the network they are
watching while not believing the other.
Sooo, you claim others are vulnerable to being hypnotized but you're not? What makes you so special? Why are you invulnerable to such things but others, perhaps the "rabble", are not? How elitist.

Fact is, it's perhaps the most normal thing in the world for people of like-minded opinions and beliefs to gather together, even if it's in front of a TV. A person who likes to read The Nation will not likely have a subscription to The Wall Street Journal.

It's these Samuel Johnson elitist-like claims which were and may still be the greatest threat to democratic republics. Such is no more than the old elitist claims that the common citizenzry were incapable of self-governance. History has proven this to be wrong. And contemporary claims such as yours in this post are just as wrong.
beetle is offline  
Old November 15th, 2012, 09:55 AM   #20

Panthera tigris altaica's Avatar
Funyuns
 
Joined: Aug 2011
From: Texas
Posts: 6,311
Blog Entries: 3

Quote:
Originally Posted by beetle View Post
I do understand what you are saying. Ever since the 1970s, persons of certain beliefs or politics have been the subject of ridicule in cultural entertainments. A standard prop of comedy has been the conservative (this goes all the way back to the Frank Burns character in MASH, Archie Bunker in All in the Family, and perhaps even back to Sinclair Lewis, Jack London, Mark Twain, etc.) Apparently, there is no such thing as a hypocrite liberal, or a liberal who does not know better than the "rabble" who obviously are incapable of the wisdom of the much higher-minded liberal.

Further, a phenomenon occurred in the US. During the heyday of the big 3 TV networks, there was no voice for political conservatives on the lone 3 outlets for the nightly news broadcasts. CBS may have been the worse in this regard. (I'll never forget when the returns kept coming in indicating a Reagan landslide in 1980, Dan Rather seemed to sink into a deeper and deeper funk during the CBS telecast. Despite years of portraying Reagan as a "war monger", "cowboy", as well as other attempts to portray him as nothing more than a caricature or a superficial stereotype, Reagan won not one, but two landslide elections. So much for the power and influence of mass media.) The phenomenon which occurred is that, as conservatives had no television outlet, they turned to radio. Conservatives now dominate talk radio. They created an alternative to what was then the TV mass media.

In our comtemporary time, we have many, many alternatives. Persons who hold beliefs which are not popular in the vanilla mass cultural entertainment which constantly insists everyone should believe the same thing and dress the same way, those persons have created their own very successful entertainment outlets in a variety of medias. Don't like MTV or pop music culture? You've got a zillion alternatives. In regard to sports, our mass media would have us think that football and baseball are the most popular sports for Americans. Actually, it's NASCAR racing.
-------------

Certainly there is a culture of mass entertainment which bombards us and which insists we should all hold the same set of beliefs and opinions. However, to think this may be more effective than what it really is, well, that overlooks the reality of life beyond the superficial bombardment. Is anyone going to vote for a certain political candidate just because he/she receives Madonna's endorsement? And for all the prolonged ridicule in entertainment of persons of certain beliefs or opinions, how effective has that been? Not much, actually. Bush II was ridiculed and caricaturized nearly as much as Reagan, but did that stop either from winning 4 elections? So much for the power and influence of mass media.
---------------

I do disagree with anyone who claims that someone who doesn't hold their beliefs and opinions as someone vulnerable to being led by the nose. This is a consistent claim from both liberal and conservative pundits and cliques. After all, there must be a reason why those someones don't understand the "truths" which I understand!

The old USSR had a habit of considering persons who didn't agree with the party "truths" to have something obviously mentally wrong with them, and shipped such persons off to sanitariums (or worse.) Other regimes made use of "re-education" camps. In our society there is a tendency to claim that those who don't hold our beliefs are subject to the manipulations of "mass media" or other propaganda. When the reality may be that those folks simply have different opinions or beliefs.

As I mentioned in the earlier post, such claims tend to be elitist. And I think they have little merit.
------------------

Panthera, I do know know what it's like to be part of a minority whose beliefs tend to be challenged or ridiculed, particularly in our entertainment culture. The US is huge and extremely pluralistic. There is something for everyone and every community or belief system. Pop cultural entertainments are just that, "pop" or superficial. People who reject pop culture have a vast variety of very successful alternatives. This situation is never or rarely reported by a national media outlet which chases only the most superficial and supposedly popular stories. Such an outlet also tends to obsess on the "hot" story of the moment, and then quickly switches to another "hot" story while completely forgetting the prior one. They're like ambulance chasers.

However, to claim that those who don't hold our opinions and beliefs must be subject to ignorant stereotypes or being led, well, that's the same claim those folks make against you because you don't share their beliefs or opinions. I think both claims are in error.
Interesting post Beetle. I would love to discuss the lot of it, but politics forbade. You may be all right about this.But...

(And what follows will be rather difficult to put into words
, if not sound incredibly weird). I will say this however. No i haven't a problem with someone who thinks different from me. In fact, i feel all the more richer by being surrounded by so many differing opinions. Heck, i am a political minority even in my own family and i still love them to death and they still love me (i think), though my mother still hasn't gotten over the shock of my *beliefs after all these years. Though family get together's had always been a bit odd and sometimes lively if i felt devilish enough to spice things up.

No, the real problem, in my book, is when people are (Let's say for the sake of the discussion, unintentionally misled) to believing so and so only because of what they see, hear or even laugh at; Which i can only guess plays it's part in this great division. Having come between families, friends, lovers, trusted confidantes, long time acquaintances or friendships at work. I don't think there should be a middle person or thing to help form or become a source that is entertaining our beliefs systems at the expense of what ever belief is the current punching bag. But yes, it has gotten that bad. So bad that a part of the misery that drives this can't but help not to notice the ummm.... phenomenon.

Turning the channel or seeking alternative entertainment doesn't seem to be working anymore, in fact it appears to be breaking down, beetle. Sooner or later, all avenues will be exhausted and we just are going to have to come face to face with the other, this unknown, thing... that was a person that we knew well once, but has turned into this vague distant memory.

* And by beliefs, i mean all things different from the perceptive of a first person
Panthera tigris altaica is offline  
Reply

  Historum > Themes in History > Art and Cultural History

Tags
mass, media


Thread Tools
Display Modes


Similar Threads
Thread Thread Starter Forum Replies Last Post
Tibet/China media compared to Israeli/Palestinian media JenABeard Asian History 11 July 31st, 2011 03:05 PM

Copyright © 2006-2013 Historum. All rights reserved.