Re: He could be right - dslreports.com

I said @frontiernet.net	reply to Maxo Re: He could be right Al Frankin? You mean the guy that Peter Jennings ripped a new asshole through? He should have stayed on SNL..He sucked as a funny man and he sucks even more as a political commentator!
	to forum · permalink · 2006-11-03 03:00:30 ·
broadbander join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY	reply to Karl Bode said by Karl Bode : quote: There is no reason to show carnage Absolutely there is. It is the reality of being at war. It is reality. Not showing it is not reporting reality. It's part of the reason that a large portion of this country's populace acts like war is G.I. Joe toys in a sandbox. I'm not saying go to the lengths of Al Jazeera for political effect, but we see no significant war images on the big-three nightly news. Even if we disagree about the sentiment and motivation, you're certainly right about the final result.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-02 17:52:31 ·
Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech	reply to Maxo quote: There is no reason to show carnage Absolutely there is. It is the reality of being at war. It is reality. Not showing it is not reporting reality. It's part of the reason that a large portion of this country's populace acts like war is G.I. Joe toys in a sandbox. I'm not saying go to the lengths of Al Jazeera for political effect, but we see no significant war images on the big-three nightly news.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-02 15:43:26 ·
Maxo Your tax dollars at work. Premium,VIP join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL clubs:	reply to Karl Bode I disagree. When I saw Saddam's kids on TV I thought it was disgusting and added absolutely nothing to the story. There is no reason to show carnage just like there is no need to show nudity when covering a story about sex. There is a line of decency that does not need to be crossed. The only time I find such things helpful is when one is collecting data, not for news reporting, but for historical accuracy. Such would be a collection of footage at Auschwitz in a library. -- "Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter »www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad »maxolasersquad.com/ »maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide »myspace.com/mlsquad
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-02 14:37:48 ·
Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech	reply to broadbander quote: will this add to the newsworthiness of this piece?" It is quite possible that many feel that, in the current climate, showing the bodies of soldiers and others is disrespectful and not for light-stomached, of which there remain plenty in America Yes, I have friends in newsrooms at local affiliates to take pride in "protecting" us from foul images. You would think there could be a realization that if we are truly concerned with accurate portrayal of reality, worrying about the sensibilities of showing carnage to a largely sheltered populace should not enter into it. Clearly there is no need to show egregious violence, but the fact that we see none seems to me to be too broad, too defining, and too significant to simply be concern over offending the public. I believe it is more likely a concern of offending the sponsors and/or maintaining good relationships with government authorities and the various scoops the provide on less controversial stories....
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-02 14:29:02 ·
broadbander join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY	reply to Karl Bode I see Matt Drudge, who has been the top rated Internet news website for a decade It'd be interesting to check his traffic versus NYtimes.com or various other news blogs. Drudge Report is one outlet. Those who read Drudge read a smathering of other blogs. Again, the point is there is plenty of counter-media on the Internet in "new media," ranging from libertarian to communist perspectives, with far more access to the general population than ever before. Unlike cable news and other now co-opted forms of media, there are plenty of options other than Matt Drudge. If he is indeed the most popular site, than it is truly reflective of people's sensibilities, not a limitation or bias of information in the marketplace (which is an upsetting thought in itself). I think the thing that prevents the showing of bloody war related images is a much darker system of intentional propaganda aimed at limiting outrage over warfare and quelling humanism driven dissent. You are no more likely to see the desecrated corpse of an enemy than you are a friend. I've worked in and studied journalism for a decade and a half. Before airing a graphic piece of footage, reporters are taught to ask "will this add to the newsworthiness of this piece?" It is quite possible that many feel that, in the current climate, showing the bodies of soldiers and others is disrespectful and not for light-stomached, of which there remain plenty in America. Having worked in the media, I also don't think "intentional" can be described as accurate. Perhaps there is subversive coloring, but I never noticed as much. In my years in the media, from trade press to the wire to daily papers, I have never been asked to "rosey up" a story critical of any administration. But again, I've worked in print media, an inherently less sensational medium.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-02 01:27:17 ·
Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech	reply to broadbander quote: New media revives this fight time and again, and competition between biased media has a similar (though not as deep) effect. First radio, then TV, then the Internet. Eventually the media becomes consolidated, but time and time again, new media outlets seeking to be objective (for the first few years) come to the forefront and certain older outlets find a solid enough consumer base (said to talk in such terms) that they can afford to be objective. I don't see this evolution. I see Matt Drudge, who has been the top rated Internet news website for a decade, still engaging in political smear attempts, and now a dozen others who mirror him from other viewpoints and ideologies. quote: As for bloody images ... I agree entirely. War is brutal and that should be illustrated. Unfortunately, that is a question of "taste" and "sensibility," having more to do with the puritan sensibilities of the Western world than media bias. I'm not so sure I buy that. We're in love with blood and guts in this country, and the complaints to the FCC over indecency come from a vast minority of christian conservatives motivated to react via Internet "outrage-o-matic" forms. I think people can take the occasional shot of a dead soldier, but we rarely see even that. I think the thing that prevents the showing of bloody war related images is a much darker system of intentional propaganda aimed at limiting outrage over warfare and quelling humanism driven dissent.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 20:07:20 ·
broadbander join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY	reply to Karl Bode I'll agree with that, but corporate advertised income model is a major problem for an objective media, and it's a fight that guys like Edward Murrows lost decades ago. New media revives this fight time and again, and competition between biased media has a similar (though not as deep) effect. First radio, then TV, then the Internet. Eventually the media becomes consolidated, but time and time again, new media outlets seeking to be objective (for the first few years) come to the forefront and certain older outlets find a solid enough consumer base (said to talk in such terms) that they can afford to be objective. There's an entire consumerism paradigm that modern media fails to challenge. Agreed to some extent, but I don't see it as the news medias job to call consumerism as an ideological trend into question, but rather to call into question particular things and events that might be related to that trend. There is also plenty of alternative media that aim all guns at "consumerism" (though often as a front for the promotion of some variant strain of communism). Even the major news outlets occasionally run pieces of consumerism and "the negative spirit of money," though more often than not there is an unfortunate naturalistic or theological spin to such stories. And there's nationalism. How long did it take for news outlets during the Iraq war to stop cheerleading and stop reporting? And why is this nation at war, yet we see absolutely no bloody images? This paragraph I believe we are in pretty solid agreement, though I think again, we may be seeing through different lenses. Nationalism is an opaque thing, but it certainly exists in media coverage, perhaps not as nationalism, but as a distinct response to a lack of nationalism on the part of cynical news reporters. It also has a lot to do with access. The government has the ability to bring a reporter onto a big ship with big guns and that is a powerful visual. Also, often times, it is not the members of the media who are biased, but the public they "inform" and yes, the suits on the top. As for bloody images ... I agree entirely. War is brutal and that should be illustrated. Unfortunately, that is a question of "taste" and "sensibility," having more to do with the puritan sensibilities of the Western world than media bias.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 19:54:48 ·
Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech	reply to broadbander quote: I think the problem is far more particular and deep than an overall "corporate bias." There are multi-functional biases and multi-faceted instances of human inability that create the overall "bad vibe" generated by cable news. I'll agree with that, but corporate advertised income model is a major problem for an objective media, and it's a fight that guys like Edward Murrows lost decades ago. The issue does go deeper than simply corporate bias. There's an entire consumerism paradigm that modern media fails to challenge. And there's nationalism. How long did it take for news outlets during the Iraq war to stop cheerleading and stop reporting? And why is this nation at war, yet we see absolutely no bloody images?
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 19:38:10 ·
broadbander join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY	reply to Karl Bode said by Karl Bode : Lets focus solely on cable-news then. You would disagree that the massive cable networks as a whole do not primarily espouse views that are primarily pro-corporation? The ever present fear of alienating advertisers has long made this a rather dysfunctional model. Cable news has particular corporate biases to the particular corporations that fund them and even that is not always the case. There are instances weekly in which any particular cable news networks will go undermine some particular corporation or another. Now, yes, there are elses instances of the converse, when a news network bloats a corporation's profile it is somehow affiliated (or in some cases not affiliated). In most cases, this can be chocked up to the same thing that causes most of the world's problems: human incompetence. However, there indeed some instances of genuine corporate suppression of stories (though generally those stories are picked up by a rival network, i.e. a rival corporation, or the somewhat more diligent print media). I will not defend network news as fantastic or even worth ingesting. However, I think the problem is far more particular and deep than an overall "corporate bias." There are multi-functional biases and multi-faceted instances of human inability that create the overall "bad vibe" generated by cable news.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 19:29:11 ·
Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech	reply to broadbander Lets focus solely on cable-news then. You would disagree that the massive cable networks as a whole do not primarily espouse views that are primarily pro-corporation? The ever present fear of alienating advertisers has long made this a rather dysfunctional model.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 18:14:08 ·
broadbander join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY	reply to Karl Bode said by Karl Bode : Again, the media is not "left" or "right", it is pro-corporate, pro-consumption, pro-violence (if it gets ratings), and pro speculation. The entire "bias" debate is so myopic, tired and un-genuine at this point it makes my head hurt. Both sides think the media espouses the views of the "other" side because they are being played against eachother to distract from the real issues they might otherwise agree upon. I think that the media is made up of individuals with their own particular views. I think a corporation, any corporation, promotes a particular culture based on the views of said employees at least in some small part. As such, I do not calling the media "pro" anything can be sweepingly true. Particularly parts of the media lean and swing certain ways. The entire media is not biased one way or the other but in a spectrum of ways. Certain media outlets do indeed lean a certain way, just as certain corporations and groups of individuals lean certain ways. Those ways are often not as simple as "left" or "right," true, but I do not think they can be called decidedly "pro" or "anti" anything as a whole.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 17:51:15 ·
broadbander join:2005-07-21 Brooklyn, NY	reply to KrK said by KrK : Exactly. What's the biggest issue of the day? Republicans:"Kerry insulted our Military men and women!" Kerry: "Did not!" Republicans: "Did too!" Kerry: "Did not!" and then the news channels convene panels of talking heads to discuss... Was it/Wasn't... Apologize/No Apologize etc etc blah blah blah crapola crapola crapola That list should with "Kerry says x" since he provoked his own demise.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 17:48:58 ·
Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech	reply to Maxo Again, the media is not "left" or "right", it is pro-corporate, pro-consumption, pro-violence (if it gets ratings), and pro speculation. The entire "bias" debate is so myopic, tired and un-genuine at this point it makes my head hurt. Both sides think the media espouses the views of the "other" side because they are being played against eachother to distract from the real issues they might otherwise agree upon.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 10:28:06 ·
Maxo Your tax dollars at work. Premium,VIP join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL clubs:	reply to NormanS I don't trust the media either. As a person who sits on the far left, I also don't find them in line with my political beliefs. So to say they are left (which I also happen to be) is not true. The news media is silly, sloppy, and unprofessional, but it is not left.
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 07:06:14 ·
NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA ·Pacific Bell - SBC	reply to Maxo said by Maxo : Anecdotal. Also, if an article is promoting a candidate, it's not a news article, it's an op/ed peice. IMO any news agency will always be critical of the current administration and everything it does. An article about the president is not the same as an op-ed piece promoting a politician. But a newspaper which is always promoting the left in the op-ed pieces is hardly a right-wing rag. Newspapers tend to publish articles which support their left-wing agenda, and omit articles which don't. When they covered the murder of a trans-gendered young man in my area, they always referred to him as "her", despite the biological facts of the case, and they always cast the perpetrators as "homophobes", despite a lack of evidence to support that as a fact. They covered the matter of a valedictorian speaker having the microphone pulled on her speech, but omitted the fact that the audience demanded that the school administration restore the microphone connection. The speaker's words were squelched by the administration because they didn't approve of her use of religious content in her speech; despite the fact that it was a graduation ceremony, not a class. I could go on... I don't trust the media. Even on non-divisive matters they get their facts wrong. Reporting a 120,000 gallon pesticide spill on the upper reaches of the Sacramento river, near the town of Dunsmuir. The car couldn't have held more than 30,000 gallons, or so. The capacity was probably about 120,000lbs GVW, not 120,000 gallons. The caption under a photo of an action in Israel, on the Lebanese border (more than ten years ago) identified an Israeli "tank" firing into Lebanon: It was a 155mm SP Howitzer. The caption under a photo identified a Salvation Army officer with some donated toys at Christmas (more than ten years ago): It was a U.S. Marine Corps NCO. Did I say that I don't trust the media? They are short on factual accuracy, and long on political spin to the left. -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-11-01 05:50:33 ·
Maxo Your tax dollars at work. Premium,VIP join:2002-11-04 Tallahassee, FL clubs:	reply to NormanS said by NormanS : Just what is so "right-wing" about news articles blasting Bush, and editorials promoting Phil Angelides for Governor, and Jerry Brown for Attorney General? Anecdotal. Also, if an article is promoting a candidate, it's not a news article, it's an op/ed peice. IMO any news agency will always be critical of the current administration and everything it does. -- "Padre, nobody said war was fun now bowl!" - Sherman T Potter »www.cafepress.com/maxolasersquad »maxolasersquad.com/ »maxolasersquad.com/network/ My DSL Network Guide »myspace.com/mlsquad
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-10-31 21:50:15 ·
NormanS Premium,MVM join:2001-02-14 San Jose, CA ·Pacific Bell - SBC	reply to KrK Just what is so "right-wing" about news articles blasting Bush, and editorials promoting Phil Angelides for Governor, and Jerry Brown for Attorney General? -- Norman ~Oh Lord, why have you come ~To Konnyu, with the Lion and the Drum
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-10-31 20:22:06 ·
KrK Heavy Artillery For The Little Guy Premium join:2000-01-17 Tulsa, OK ·AT&T Yahoo ·AT&T DSL Service ·Cox HSI ·AT&T Southwest	reply to Karl Bode Exactly. What's the biggest issue of the day? Republicans:"Kerry insulted our Military men and women!" Kerry: "Did not!" Republicans: "Did too!" Kerry: "Did not!" and then the news channels convene panels of talking heads to discuss... Was it/Wasn't... Apologize/No Apologize etc etc blah blah blah crapola crapola crapola -- "Regulatory capitalism is when companies invest in lawyers, lobbyists, and politicians, instead of plant, people, and customer service." - former FCC Chairman William Kennard (A real FCC Chairman, unlike the current Corporate Spokesperson in the job!)
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-10-31 20:09:56 ·
Karl Bode News Guy join:2000-03-02 Host: Road Runner PC gaming GAMES PC gaming Tech	reply to KrK Just look at what's being discussed as we approach our elections. Who is a bigger war-coward, who diddles kids, is Michael J Fox not taking his Parkinsons meds, etc. No discussion of corporate control, no real discussion of government intrusion into privacy, no real discussion of the war frankly, either. Propaganda has people bickering over inane crap when we're really all on the same side (humanism).
	to forum · permalink · · 2006-10-31 19:55:39 ·


Wednesday, 02-Dec 14:15:46	Terms of Use \| Privacy Policy \| Hosting by www.nac.net - DSL,Hosting & Co-lo \| feedback \| contact over 10 years online! © 1999-2009 dslreports.com.republican-creole page compression OFF