USA media, a rant.

[ApeTheDog]

I have to get this out of my system. After all this time following USA politics and observing their culture, I am still shocked by the lack of critical thinking that seems to be a symptom of their culture. I have just seen a reporter on CNN talk to a panel of wise men about the presidents state of the union, and the only point he seems to have on his agenda is praising the president.

Critical media is a good thing, if not because it means the public will be better informed, then because it also serves as a deterrent to politicians, in that they know they should be careful with what they say and decide their policy will be - or else the media will confront them with their errors.

I hope I am wrong here, but I get the impression that this sort of critical thinking doesn't exist in relation to the president. And that is dangerous, as lack of criticism can result in wrong decisions that go unchallenged, and wrong decisions are unacceptable in such a high political position.

Am I the only person who thinks there is something wrong when an underaged celebrity smokes a cigarette she is being ground to pieces by the media, but when the president lies about weapons of mass destruction and repeatedly acts on barely camouflaged self-interest, the response from the media is lukewarm at best?

[Hamro]

i know i have this feeling too, people just let it slip between their fingers. if you turn on FOX channel and watch the debates over the president all they do is praise him. also tune in to bill o reiley(sp?) if you want to see a narcissistic ASSHOLE

[gypseymothlee]

Does it appear to anyone else that there is also a message of intelligence = bad ?

[Ritchell]

I recent issue of Time made the point that Bush is able to overstep usual boundaries of action due to the fact that Cheney isn't running after him. Since he has no one in particular to set up for, he can be more radical in his reforms and general legislations without (too much) worry of not having a Republican win the next term. I don't know how applicable it actually is, but I thought it was an interesting point to address.

In American media (gross hyperbole ensues), if you start talking intelligently, people stop listening. It's utterly boring to most over here to watch an intelligent breakdown of a speech, for instance. It's much more fun for watch someone praise the speaker and, if you're pro-Bush, yell in agreement, if you're anti-Bush, yell in disagreement. Either way, everyone gets entertainment out of the praise. It's too bad political media shouldn't be about entertainment.

[ApeTheDog]

I suppose it's an unfortunate side-effect of being such a big country. There is just too much of everything and too much competition means they sometimes have to play on the lowest denominator to win. For example if a new newspaper wanted to stand a chance of surviving in the publishing sector, it would have to either compete with juggernauts like the NY Times and Washington post, or stoop lower than anybody else had before, even if it meanth reporting on elvis/space alien conspiracies and sex.

I sometimes wonder where it will all end up. Not to be a pessimist here, but the chance that this trend will spiral downwards is better than that of it improving, as the latter would require deliberate action. Do any Americans have any insights?

[CoHo]

You can always hope for the internet.

In 20 years (heck maybe 10 or 5) it would be technically possible to have all forms of communication sent through the net. That is phone, television, radio, print. Most of these are available now (TV is the real kicker) it is just a matter of people using them.

I get all my news online, I don't even watch the news anymore. I'm sure lots of other people do the same. Eventually this will become more mainstream. People will watch television and check the news online. The benefit of the internet is people won’t be forced into the three or four options they have now. They will have thousands of channels and millions of websites providing information.

Now, this doesn't mean people will change. This could mean that people will polarize their viewpoints. Rigid Evangelists will watch Rigid Evangelist news. Diehard Anti-Government Eco-Terrorists will watch Eco-Terrorist news.

I don't like that as much. What I do like about this concept is people won’t be as controllable as they are today. If the four news channels want to spend 4 days non-stop about some frivolous crap most people don't have a choice other then to watch it. At least with the internet news there will be less of that.

[mgb]

You goddamned liberal hippies. heh heh

I get most of my "American" TV news from John Stewart. He is critical of everyone so he he gets people form both sides and he is funny.

[indie]

Good points, CW. Also, there are documentaries. I just watched Fahrenheit 9/11 for the first time yesterday, and I was astounded. It talked about a lot of things that the "traditional" media would never touch. Documentaries seem to be becoming trendy, so I'm hopeful that more people will be open to getting info that way.

As far as the bias goes . . . well, stay away from Fox News Channel. MSNBC is owned by General Electric. CBS is owned by Time Warner.

Ever since the FCC deregulated the media, there is NOTHING stopping those companies from reporting only "one side" of the story and essentially "controlling" the "pulse" of news. This is not to say I am a conspiracy theorist, only that it cannot *cannot* be good for society.

Let "consumer" = a person who gets information from television, newspapers, etc and "trusts" that info as valid

Competition is good for the consumer, bad for businesses. Theoretically, deregulating is supposed to make it easierfor new businesses to enter an industry, and create competition. But in the case of the FCC deregulation, that did not happen. What happened was that the "big" companies acquired all the smaller ones . . . and guess what happened? There is actually less competition, which is good for the business and bad for the consumer .

There are 5 forces (Michael Porter's theory) that control how easy it is for new businesses to enter an industry.
-Power of buyers
-Power of suppliers
-Competitive rivalry
-Availability of substitutes
-Entry barriers

In the case of the media industry, it's almost impossible for a "new" network to come in and be able to compete because power of suppliers > power of buyers. Sure, there is competitive rivalry among the networks, but they all feed off each other anyway. Flipping through the channels, almost all of them have the same stories. Because all of them are affiliated with conglomerates, they won't report on things that make "them" look bad. They won't report on things that could potentially harm their business. They divert attention away from things that matter or might matter to the people (such as deregulating media) by creating a circus around something else, like American Idol or some celebrities' trials.

It's all a big mess, but, sadly, most people don't care. They're happy to just watch American Idol and let people die in war so that the wealthy conglomerates can get even wealthier.

Sorry if this veered off topic. I tend to be a long-winded :rant: er.

[heeroyuy]

Does it appear to anyone else that there is also a message of intelligence = bad ?

Only if you don't go about it correctly. See-you're supposed to waste your intelligence, and not gain anymore, the goal in life is transitory worthless self satisfaction that vanishes with you the day your flesh decays and becomes part of the ground upon which we stand.

...Sorry, I'm posting from school, very cynical :) Most media, not just American, but American more than anywhere, is sensationalist. I would agree though, America places influence upon good = compliant, not good = smart. I'm intelligent but don't do anything i see no sense in, one teacher is afraid of me and lets me read, one tries to pick on me to make me angry, two understand and help me out, the others...they don't notice.

In America, patriotic is keeping your mouth shut and staying in line. In America, it's all about how much you can bench press so you can go out and get shot liberating Mr. Bush's oil.

In America democracy votes you.

[Warrior413]

I don't have any faith in standard American media. I prefer getting information from documentaries, the Daily Show, reading between the lines of Newsweek, and sites like this. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html)

[misutii]

I don't have any faith in standard American media. I prefer getting information from documentaries, the Daily Show, reading between the lines of Newsweek, and sites like this. (http://www.informationclearinghouse.info/index.html)


i was checking out that link and before i started reading i saw a link on that site to fahrenheit 9/11 so i stopped. Fox News and CNN are bullshit but so is Michael Moore and I hate this new-age hippy bullshit that i find even professors have the gull to spout these days. Subjective bullshit is still bullshit whether it came from the right or the left, give me the objective on the other hand and i will comply.

[CoHo]

Have you tried the BBC? (http://news.bbc.co.uk)

I'm interested in what people think of the BBC because I've always thought of it as impartial (from an American perspective). It has been my favorite spot for news for years. I think it has the best layout of any of the news websites. Maybe I'm just used to overbearing in-your-face American news.

Does anyone consider it left/right/conservative/liberal?

[garak]

I suppose it's an unfortunate side-effect of being such a big country. There is just too much of everything and too much competition means they sometimes have to play on the lowest denominator to win. . . .
Interesting thought. Funny that this thread is about critical thinking because you really are doing analysis of America's problems instead of just being like "America sucks," etc., as a lot of non-Americans and American liberals tend to do. Seems like people just throw up their hands and bitch instead of trying to learn or help or do anything else constructive.

re BBC: I don't use the internet much for news, and the BCC isn't on TV here, but the general opinion of BBC in America seems to be that it is liberal, in fact "obviously" liberal since it's European and all.

Basically:

American TV minus Fox News, and the majority of American newspapers -> liberal
Fox News, talk radio, some newspapers -> conservative
Oh yeah and of course anything overseas, particularly European -> liberal

As much as any of these media outlets tries to be unbiased, none of them really seem to be able to pull off "being in the middle." They generally get labeled one way or the other. Personally I like CNN and MSNBC, though I realize that CNN is pretty liberal and MSNBC is as well, though less than CNN (I love Pat Buchanan).

I haven't paid too much attention to foreign news sources, but of course I have read the occasional random article or whatever. Personally I've never noticed foreign media being particularly intellectual.

[Star]

Fox News and CNN are bullshit but so is Michael Moore and I hate this new-age hippy bullshit whether it came from the right or the left, give me the objective on the other hand and i will comply.

Wow, that comment left me a bit stunned. I feel completely the opposite: I am overjoyed to see any kind of left-thinking make its way through to the masses. If it's the only left voice then there's no way it could be strong enough to counteract all the vitriol coming from the right lately, which is mostly paid entertainers foaming at the mouth with hate at some imaginary idea of a left that doesn't even exist any more.

What do they really mean when they say the word 'liberal' with such venom? Who are they talking about, these angry rich white guys on TV and radio, anyway? Are they talking about these people (http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/single/se30142.jpeg/)?

I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 yet, but I've seen Bowling for Columbine a few times and found it very moving.

One of my favorite news sites: Common Dreams News Center (http://www.commondreams.org)

Anyway everything I want to say was said better already by indiejade.

[Warrior413]

i was checking out that link and before i started reading i saw a link on that site to fahrenheit 9/11 so i stopped. Fox News and CNN are bullshit but so is Michael Moore and I hate this new-age hippy bullshit that i find even professors have the gull to spout these days. Subjective bullshit is still bullshit whether it came from the right or the left, give me the objective on the other hand and i will comply.
Heh. Well it links to different news organizations, I don't know where you saw the Micheal Moore link but yes it certainly isn't in favor of Bush. I also look at the BBC as well as Le Monde. (http://mondediplo.com/)

[ApeTheDog]

Ugh. Is there no neutral media in the USA? Impartial coverage? I would go completely paranoid.

In here, in Belgium, when I read my newspaper I get the facts, no opinions whatsoever. Perhaps that's why to Americans it seems as european news is not particularily intelligent. The newspapers never try to make a point - they leave that up to the reader. That's exactly how I like it, as I never have to question whether something is true, or an exageration for political means.

The BBC is a good example of this. They also try hard to be neutral. I'm pretty certain that, if one of their reporters was found lying, he would be fired on the spot. Even, no, especially if he did it for political means.

I get the impression that the USA is a very polarised country. You're either this, or that - and never neither, and rarely a third thing. I see this in politics, I see this in the media now... I wonder if I would see this in other aspects of your culture. It's quite interesting, but also distressing.

[Dman]

I reiterate the point I’ve made in several other posts: the popular media, particularly in the US, is not about information. It’s about entertainment. They do not make money by providing raw unbiased information. People want junk food news – quick, shallow, no nutritional value. Intelligent, objective political commentary does not attract viewers (thus money).

An excellent case study is to watch your 6:00 local news. The stories they choose to cover, the depth involved, and the “baiting” they use to get you to stay tuned is insulting to the intelligence.

The BBC is ok, but still lacks depth. The best thing I’ve found about it is that it is occasionally a different POV or coverage than CNN or MSNBC.

Regarding Moore’s documentaries, the only real value to them is if you are used to watching traditional popular media for your information. Other than that, it is propaganda just like something coming from the right. There is always two-sides to every story, and you can always find situations and people to contradict something from the opposing viewpoint and make the other side look “evil” and sneaky. Truth is, both sides are guilty of being evil and sneaky.
Disclaimer - I am a democrat and did not vote for Bush either term.

Regarding polarization, yeah, we’re a competition-centered country and like to choose one side or the other. Most people do not fall exclusively right or left but have different opinions on different topics. People just choose one side or the other to identify and make a statement about themselves.

You have to take everything you see in the media with a grain of salt, and if it is something you are truly concerned about you need to seek alternative media sources to try to get every angle of it. Indeed, most people don’t care to take the time to research a lot of media “hot topics”, they just buy in to whoever sounds like they know what they’re talking about, or the headline they saw, and then go spouting off about it to everyone they know as if it were their own insightful thoughts.

Wow, I guess I got caught up in the rant too, I could go on for a long time but I’ll spare y’all

[Dman]

Oh yeah, sorry for the double post, but I forgot to mention – wasn’t the BBC involved in a case of documented biased reporting not too long ago? I thought I remembered something about that a year or two ago. At any rate, to say that the BBC is not biased would be to kid yourself. Maybe they aren’t as bad as the big US media outlets, but it’s definitely there.

[misutii]

Wow, that comment left me a bit stunned. I feel completely the opposite: I am overjoyed to see any kind of left-thinking make its way through to the masses. If it's the only left voice then there's no way it could be strong enough to counteract all the vitriol coming from the right lately, which is mostly paid entertainers foaming at the mouth with hate at some imaginary idea of a left that doesn't even exist any more.

What do they really mean when they say the word 'liberal' with such venom? Who are they talking about, these angry rich white guys on TV and radio, anyway? Are they talking about these people (http://www.sorryeverybody.com/gallery/single/se30142.jpeg/)?

I haven't seen Farenheit 9/11 yet, but I've seen Bowling for Columbine a few times and found it very moving.

One of my favorite news sites: Common Dreams News Center (http://www.commondreams.org)

Anyway everything I want to say was said better already by indiejade.


If i lived in the US i'd probably feel the same but Canada has the 'new-age' socialism thing going whereby everything the US does is considered "evil" and capitalists are "bastards" etc... I don't mind criticizing the US myself but only in an intelligent manner, the politicians up here just throw stupid comments everywhere like 'Americans are assholes' etc... our parliament needs to introduce higher standards because i'm embarassed to be represented by them.

When I first watched bowling for columbine i was very moved too but the anti-americanism (i was very anti-american at the time) but the last couple of years i've grown up. If you do a search i'm sure you can find websites detailing all the inconsistencies in the documentary, it's quite astounding and frightening. I just detest how Moore relies on "shock value" rather than facts

[heeroyuy]

The most interesting thing about influence of media upon people is what people begin to believe. I've encountered lots of people who believed sadaam was responsible for the September 11th attacks, as well as alot of other things. I also find it amusing that much of the American public will flock to damn near anything the media says, as though it is totally unbiased. People trust our journalists far too much. Yet another reason the internet is beautiful, people can read and discuss, and thereby enrich their point of view. Not that many Americans want enrichment other than more sex, more psychotropic drugs, and more time off work, but hey :) (I'm an American, I'm allowed to say that).

[CoHo]

American public will flock to damn near anything the media says, as though it is totally unbiased.

I don't think you can single out the Americans for this action. Almost every population from any location on the planet are sheeple.

[ApeTheDog]

I think you can even safely say that everybody is sheeple. What a nice word, by the way.

[Killsteel]

I don't think you can single out the Americans for this action. Almost every population from any location on the planet are sheeple.

:blink: :rant:

MY WORD!!!
(I am known as 'Sheep and 3/4' on the UGO forums, and we had a jokey 'Spam Wars' thing. That's when I thought of the word)

Doesn't matter, you use it all you want, I'll try to control myself :blink: ...

But yeah, I agree...

[CoHo]

:D

More bad news: The earliest recording of the term sheeple is in the wall street journal, in 1984
http://www.wordspy.com/words/sheeple.asp

[Killsteel]

Dammit. Oh well, we'll both have to borrow it then. Cool word, though, isn't it?

[Division56]

They use "sheeple" a lot on the atheist forums.