Fixing our broken media... a few thoughts

[The Animator]

Since the change from objective journalism to propaganda was so gradual here in the US, many of us are unaware that anything is different about they way we get our news. Much like a frog sitting in a pot of slowly warming water, we sit comfortably ignorant of the fact that we are being boiled alive. I believe that, left to their own devices many Americans would favor common sense over what passes for political analysis on American TV, but they have been gradually manipulated by information sources they trusted to be neutral. Frankly, many Americans are unaware of how much their own opinions are shaped by the way their news is delivered to them. Instead of being allowed to make up their own minds, the hosts of these show make it up for them, by allowing rw guests to lie without being challenge, yet interrupt and shout down anyone that disagrees. By and large American audiences have forgotten what real news is supposed to look like.

Expose your friends, relatives, and co-workers on the right to real news. Not just what passes for mainstream news in the US, and I'm not talking about blogs, or internet news sites that can be dismissed and fringe, or biased. I'm talking actual legitimate balanced news... where to get such a thing you ask? Europe of course, where the castles aren't made of plastic.

You've all gotten e-mails from these guys, you know the kind of emails that you can only get three lines into before pegging the needle on you rw bullshit meter. Next time you have a topical conversation with these people, listen politely, disagree if you must, but feign ignorance on details. Then look it up on the BBC, Reuters, Interfax (they require a subscription though) or (NPR if they won't read anything "unAmerican"). This is where the rest of the world gets their news from. No news source is %100 neutral, but viewing a current event from a different vantage point might shake things up a bit.

Send an e-mail back to these guys with a link to an objective and truly balanced article. Tell them that you appreciated their insights and found some stuff online that you thought they might be interested in. Do it often enough, and to enough people, and a few might realize what they've been missing. Especially if you include an article or two about the influence of "American Infotainment on US politics"

http://www.bbc.co.uk/?ok

http://www.reuters.com/

http://www.interfax.com/

http://www.npr.org/

As a student of journalism, I was warned about the dangers of mixing straight news with editorial. I learned that objectivity was the key to ethical journalism. Allowing you own prejudices to influence your story would inevitably influence those who read it. It's not our job to tell people what to think or how to feel, our job is to tell them what's going on. Thinking about it is their job. Those lessons stuck with me long after I left the Community College where I'd learned them. Years later, that knowledge allowed me to recognize the manipulations for what they were, and immunized me against it.

I know of no recourse to put the genie back in the bottle, to get our fourth estate back on track. Its civil obligation is informing the American public accurately, and to the best of it's ability. It is a vital role in our democracy. Where the Executive Branch and Military is subject to Congressional Oversight, the purpose of the media was to provide PUBLIC OVERSIGHT. Through journalists, we could determine if OUR government was preforming to OUR satisfaction and, thus informed, hold them accountable come election time. That is key. The main problem is that our "free and independent press" is no longer free... our media outlets are subject to the few, very large corporations who own them. The function of the free press, to act as a fourth estate in American Government has usurped. That noble intention has been replaced by the demand to generate the highest possible profit for their stockholders. To do that, our media transitioned from investigative journalism, to infotainment. From "Watergate", to "Is Jessica Simpson's sister pregnant?". The latter does sell more News Papers, but does little to provide the American people with an accurate assessment of our governments performance. The American people have a fundamental right to public government oversight, that institution is being denied to us.. and the sad thing is, many of us don't even realize it... But hey, these are just the ravings of a fringe left wing lunatic... After all, something that big oughtta be in the news...

[opihimoimoi]

1. K&R the pubs who control the Media has resulted in a massive fuck up///

They deviate from Facts in order to support their presumptions....they search for reasons to make it work....some call it nit picking...whining...on the neg side...

TRUTH will be the final filter....its is futile to resist TRUTH REASON AND SANITY...if they are rejected, fantasy must be present...

[grannie4peace]

2. thanks

for the links. i can lose sites easily & forget they exist. so i bookmarked your post :):):) the tv is killing me , my blood pressure goes up & i walk around fuming at thin air.... real news is like fresh water.... humans need it to survive:):):)

[EV_Ares]

3. Regarding your comment about mixing straight news with the editorial; a lot of people

think just because papers such as The Wall Street Journal of which I have always subscribed has a conservative editorial page and it does, probably one of the most conservative in the nation but their newspaper is one of the best in reporting and national news. Then you have the NY Times editorial page and newspaper. Many of the journalists have moved back and forth between these two newsrooms. However, editorial pages and the news pages are two completely separate operatives.

[The Animator]

5. In News Papers it is less noticeable...

In truth my exposure to newspapers are limited to The Orlando Sentinel (aka the Slantinel), the Tampa Tribune, and USA Today. I think they're all owned by the same company anyway.

Most of my beef is with the talking heads... where the majority of Americans get there news, and are more likely to be misinformed.

I saw a copy of USA today and there was a basketball story on the front page and atrocities in some third world country on the back.. Coming from the mindset that the most important stories go in front, I came to the conclusion that there was something really wrong with USA Today. It's funny you mention the Wall Street Journal. Independently owned newspapers have a better track record than those papers that were purchased early on. The Wall Street Journal is one example, the St. Petersburg Times is another. The Wall Street Journal, however, was recently purchased by Rupert Murdoch (yeah the RW nutjob that owns FOX NEWS). Since it is a recent acquisition it will take time for it's transformation to occur. In time however, even the WSJ will feel the pressure to make money by any means necessary, the notes from on high will start to rain down, and those not willing to do Murdoch's bidding will get the ax.

[autorank]

4. The media works just fine for them. When was it ever a free press?

Recall the Eisenhower quotation that people haul out concerning the dangers of the 'military
industrial complex.' He sounds like a pretty forthright guy.

He'd never have participated in a 1953 coup that threw out the first DEMOCRATICALLY elected government
in Iran, the Mossadegh government? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mohammed_Mossadegh#Operation_Ajax

If Ike had done that, the free press would have reported it, that's for sure.

He'd never have allowed his circle of advisers, who had commercial interests in Nicaragua, to
perpetrate a coup based on false clams that the leader was a Communist (he wanted land reform
which would have cost United Fruit big time)? http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Operation_PBSUCCESS

If Ike had done that, the free press would have reported it, that's for sure.

While leading the build up of the military industrial complex, Eisenhower allowed people with
commercial interests to enrich themselves by using the U.S. military and intelligent community to
stage violent coups against democratically elected government in Nicaragua and Iran.

The press DID NOTHING. Not a thing.

That's why I say it works just fine. It keeps the lid on, makes sure that only
a few know the dirty politics that drive this country down to enrich a few. It writes an
empty history leaving out entire episodes so people don't get too upset at the self enrichment
of the few at the expense of the many.

When did we have a free press in the modern era? Never. It's a house organ for commercial interests.

[The Animator]

6. I'm not saying our press was ever perfect... but it used to be a hell of a lot better.

True, there have been shameful examples of when they have dropped the ball in the past, the McCarthy era was filled them. The modern day media reminds me more of the yellow journalism of the Hurst papers. Their fabrications started the Spanish American War, and why? Because wars sold more newspapers.

There are also shining examples of newspapers were supposed to be. Investigative journalists tagged as "muckrakers" exposed political corruption and stood up to large corporate trusts.

[autorank]

9. Agreed, it was much better during the 'muckraker' period.

The concentration of ownership anlong with the diversification of news companies into other areas killed off. To prove your point, the NYT of today would not be expected to publish "The Pentagon
Papers" as their predecessors did in the 70's.

The problem during the Eisenhower era is a perfect example. Nothing much said while we're invading countries or overturning historic democratic movements in Iran.

Thank God for the Internet, the people's free information network.

[KharmaTrain]

7. We Need To Re-Invent The Media

...just like is happening via the "internets". Places like DU, DKos, C & L, TPM and many other exellent sites have brought many liberal and progressives out of the hinterlands and given us both a voice and hope for the future. We've seen in the past four years, this movement grow from being a bunch of "dirty f*ckin' hippies" into a force that will have an influence on this year's elections. Call it the "netroots" or "people-power", but it's a force that could redefine the media if we work on developing both intellectual and financial resources.

With the many blogs showing the commercial potential...and with few generous benefactors...along with the push for media reregulation, there are many options open where our voices can get louder and more prominent. There are already many great talents and voices out there to seed Progressive talk programs and stations...using "conventional" and alternative forms to transmit ideas and information. Many have set out on their own to do these things and if we can harnass these people and connect them with both the funding and the support, a new media can and will evolve...and with it, heavily influence the remainder of the media.

Thank you for your insights...

[Spike89]

8. Educate, educate, educate

I agree with much of what you're saying, recognizing the opinion pages as seperate from the news pages is pretty simple in a newspaper. TV has always been a horrible and horribly abused news channel, cable "news" has just made it much, much more visible and obvious. Reported, researched, and vetted news is extremely rare on TV, but opinions on the news are everything. TV is actually good at that type of dissection, they can get the facts from some newspaper or wire source and a bit of time enables them to get some footage, and debate-spin-skew makes for interesting viewing.

Expecting blogs and news groups to "fix" this simply isn't going to work, (at least the way it's being described around here). Just follow the best threads on DU, inevitably, a citation from an established news source, mostly newspaper/wire service, will be the basis. The point is that we need people trained to report, more importantly, trained to investigate, and we need them to have a structure that will pay them for it...in other words, journalists working for a media outlet.

I believe ownership restrictions are part of the answer to maintaining good news outlets (competition alone can help keep quality up), but we also need to educate people that TV "news" is as healthy for a mind as lard-filled gum drops would be for your waistline.

[azul]

10. News media need some reining in.

This corporate-owned media near-monopoly business plan isn't working out too well for democracy.

When the audience is confused as to what is editorial and what is news, and even what is true, corruption and criminality can thrive in government. And sometimes authoritarians can take charge.

http://www.projectcensored.org/top-stories/articles/11-the-media-can-legally-lie/

It's going to take some legislation to keep them honest and responsible, and some more believable competition to keep it on track.

Just one major news source would put the lie to most of this trivial bs and lies and spin.

[The Animator]

11. Maybe some monopoly busting legislation is in order.

I seem to recall the government stepping in when Microsoft got too big, and broke off chunks of it into smaller independent companies. Maybe that's what needs to happen here. The government can step in, and divorce these media outlets from corporate control. They are fully justified to do this, it is in the best interest of the country to restore the objectivity of our news media. It's vital to our Democracy to have a free and independent press.

Maybe fines, perhaps the FCC could investigate complaints about show hosts mixing opinion with straight news, and passing off speculation as truth, and levy heavy fines against violators.

Just like the packaging regulations for any consumer product, news channels should actually have some news on them. How about a regulation that states any channel with the word NEWS in the title must spend and alloted number of hours say 51% on "straight news" (otherwise it's just an entertainment channel with a lot of time spent on current events)and have a dedicated staff of investigative journalists on payroll (even if it's only two guys with no budget). News analysis shows (read bullshit) need to be marked with a warning label that describes it as "for entertainment purposes only". A clear lines needs to be drawn between shows that present the facts, and shows that present opinion and speculation as fact... Nancy Grace anyone?