STORM2K

Okay, rather than submitting this in the Israel thread, or any others, and have people shouting about getting "off topic"...and not altogether unjustified, I thought I'd start one specifically dealing with the media. Personally, I don't care in which direction the thread wanders as long as the central THEME IS THE MEDIA AND IT'S POTENTIAL to either "inform", or to "misinform". Any/all contributors are welcome.

**Disclaimer: The opinions/statements cited are not necessarily mine, and certainly not those of this website--but represent only those of the sources from which they come.

I wish to begin this topic with the following, IMO, insightful look at how the media CAN be manipulated into helping create a public image--favorable to one side, and unfavorable to another. I readily admit that this link is to a Jewish website, so there's absolutely NO doubt as to where their sympathies lay. That said, most, if not all, of what they state in this clip, can probably be searched out for those that care to take the time to do so. And before someone jumps up and says that "well we can't take their word for everything, and I just don't have the time to check all their accusations out..." I would simply respond that theirs is a valid argument; albeit I would equally feel that a LOT of what we're getting from the MSM (Mainstream Media) today--would fall under the same category. Are some of these folks actually objectively reporting the stories... or are they trying to create them?

http://www.aish.com/movies/PhotoFraud.asp

Just something you might want to think about. Personally I use ALL these news sources, I find that perhaps "most" ARE actually "trying" to simply report given what THEY see, or are given. Perhaps the worst failing of the narrater is the generalizing across the board to either AP or Reuters, inasmuch as much of their work is submitted to others who "take it from there" leaving the AP/Reuters label intact... my only point is that I'm a FIRM believer in the addage "believe none of what you read, and only half of what you see;" because there is more often than not, a LOT more to the story, than that which you are being allowed--"to see".

A2K

Note: I DO NOT want this to take off on anything REMOTELY resembling a "political" tack. It is to focus on means of reporting, and/or manipulating opinions through propaganda--WITHOUT the political innuendos PLEASE. I have spent many years studying both logic and propaganda, and this is why it interests me--beyond that, there are to be no political innuendos or conclusions drawn--one way, or the other... also... NO attacks aimed at a specific agency are expected. One might express their opinion of the reliability of some reporting; but no attacks against an entire organization, as per stated board/forum policy, will be expected, or tolerated.

A2K

I take the old adage one further-believe none of what you hear. The media is a mine of mis and dis information and often they mislead not by what they say or present but by what they do not. Look at the hash they make of hurricane coverage.

Steve

This recent news from my hometown shows that the media, how reliable they might often look, can make huge mistakes, such as this one: not verifying the source of the news they get. I just hope this doesn't happen all too often, because I'd like to have at least one source of news which I can trust.

The Netherlands: Mayor Still Not Dead
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 12, 2006
The national broadcaster TV NOS apologized after wrongly reporting the death of the mayor of Utrecht, Annie Brouwer, who has been hospitalized with Legionnaire’s disease. The report was posted just briefly on the television “crawl,’’ but it was picked up quickly by other news media. NOS said its report “was based on unreliable information,’’ apparently in the form of an anonymous e-mail message sent from a Hotmail account

Sounds like your version of an everyday occurrence in US media. The Headline, you should submit that one to Jay Leno of the Tonight Show.

Steve

Aslkahuna wrote:I take the old adage one further-believe none of what you hear. The media is a mine of mis and dis information and often they mislead not by what they say or present but by what they do not. Look at the hash they make of hurricane coverage.

Steve

Excellent point!

A2K

Yarrah wrote:This recent news from my hometown shows that the media, how reliable they might often look, can make huge mistakes, such as this one: not verifying the source of the news they get. I just hope this doesn't happen all too often, because I'd like to have at least one source of news which I can trust.

The Netherlands: Mayor Still Not Dead
By THE ASSOCIATED PRESS
Published: August 12, 2006
The national broadcaster TV NOS apologized after wrongly reporting the death of the mayor of Utrecht, Annie Brouwer, who has been hospitalized with Legionnaire’s disease. The report was posted just briefly on the television “crawl,’’ but it was picked up quickly by other news media. NOS said its report “was based on unreliable information,’’ apparently in the form of an anonymous e-mail message sent from a Hotmail account

Sounds like another Twain quote is applicable: "The reports of my death are a bit premature!" ... I guess the general conclusion to be made is that one might see/hear/read all sorts of info; but unless they know how to sift mistakes/built-in bias/omissions, they can very much come to an erroneous conclusion--perhaps this also explains some extreme shifts in various types of polls from one week to the next. I'm sure there have been polls on the public's confidence in the media; and I don't believe their score was all that high--which IMO is as it should be.

A2K

Here locally, I personally have been involved in a couple of stories that made TV news. Both times the media got the facts wrong or just plain reported them incorrectly. Seems the bubble headed bleach blond had to twist the facts to make the report more news worthy. And they wonder why American's are so skeptical.....MGC

"The reports of an imminent terrorist attack were a bit premature!"

I'd agree with A2K that the media can be unreliable. For example early stories made it sound like the recent liquid plane terror attack was imminent. Now the story is changing. Recent reports cite British intelligence officials as saying many of the suspects did not even have plane tickets or passports. The British wanted to wait longer to monitor suspects but they were pressured by American officials.

http://www.msnbc.msn.com/id/14320452/

Anyway, many times the intial story changes as we learn more information over time.

Anyway, many times the intial story changes as we learn more information over time.

This is definitely true. While I will begin with the qualification that what has been disclosed regarding a terror plot is still a huge story and by no stretch to be confused with the forthcoming mention of "mole hills"--the sad fact of the matter in today's media is that the "sensational" sells... and $$$$$ really talk loudly. So they take their little mole hills, and prop up their Everests for people to ogle at--without their realizing that what they are beholding is little more than eye-candy--an illusion, so designed to keep the audience asking for "more". Or perhaps--to condition their thinking?

A2K

Audrey2Katrina wrote:

Anyway, many times the intial story changes as we learn more information over time.

the sad fact of the matter in today's media is that the "sensational" sells... and $$$$$ really talk loudly. So they take their little mole hills, and prop up their Everests for people to ogle at--without their realizing that what they are beholding is little more than eye-candy--an illusion, so designed to keep the audience asking for "more". Or perhaps--to condition their thinking?

Very good point. I think the point that you described is one of the main threats to the media; it makes it highly unreliable. The news article I quoted earlier also shows that news agencies are really looking for 'sensational' news and if they get even the slightest chance to show the public some sensational news, they'll gladly take the news for granted, without even checking the source of the news they recieve. And you'd think that with all the recent happenings in the Netherlands and the world the NOS would be satisfied. But I guess enough is never enough, even for the media.

Audrey2Katrina wrote:

Anyway, many times the intial story changes as we learn more information over time.

This is definitely true. While I will begin with the qualification that what has been disclosed regarding a terror plot is still a huge story and by no stretch to be confused with the forthcoming mention of "mole hills"--the sad fact of the matter in today's media is that the "sensational" sells... and $$$$$ really talk loudly. So they take their little mole hills, and prop up their Everests for people to ogle at--without their realizing that what they are beholding is little more than eye-candy--an illusion, so designed to keep the audience asking for "more". Or perhaps--to condition their thinking?

A2K

So true, so true. The media is very sensational.

Here are my thoughts. This news media is driven by advertising dollars. There is no compelling reason why a person abducted in Aruba or whatever should be on National News for months and months on end. Other than the fact that the American public can become so infatuated with a story that it becomes almost morbid and obscene.

There is no compelling reason why a person abducted in Aruba or whatever should be on National News for months and months on end. Other than the fact that the American public can become so infatuated with a story that it becomes almost morbid and obscene.

I have to agree completely here. I make no bones about saying that what happened to Natalie Holloway was both disturbing, and tragic; however, similar tragedies occur on a daily basis, probably within your own urban--and even rural--communities. The difference is that the media can take one of these very real tragedies, and make of it, a cause celebre--and a VERY morbid "reality" show called "Tragedy Exploited" is aired over and over again until the ratings fall below the acceptable--at which point they move on to the next candidate for their reality show--perhaps the disappearance of someone from a cruise ship? The supply of potential "episodes" therein, is literally limitless.


A2K