TranceAddict Forums (www.tranceaddict.com/forums)
- Political Discussion / Debate
-- News Channels..
Pages (3): [1] 2 3 »

News Channels..

How is the news channels and media in your country?

In my coountry it totally sucks, they steal vedios from youtube and show it on news prime time to gain viewership.. for them breaking news is of a vedio which shows 'Goat eaiting another Goat kabab! This goat also drinks alchohol and smokes!' And than they will show vedio of this goat for next 30 minutes..

Thats what all the 'news' channel is about in my country.. I heard Taiwan suffers the same fate..

How is it like for the news media in your country?

Do you rely on BBC and CNN too to get relevent international news on relevant issues?

I cant wait for France to come with its own international news channel!!

Re: News Channels..

quote:

Originally posted by Purple How is the news channels and media in your country? In my coountry it totally sucks, they steal vedios from youtube and show it on news prime time to gain viewership.. for them breaking news is of a vedio which shows 'Goat eaiting another Goat kabab! This goat also drinks alchohol and smokes!' And than they will show vedio of this goat for next 30 minutes.. Thats what all the 'news' channel is about in my country.. I heard Taiwan suffers the same fate.. How is it like for the news media in your country? Do you rely on BBC and CNN too to get relevent international news on relevant issues? I cant wait for France to come with its own international news channel!!

And what country are you from??

US is media is mostly owned by a few multinational corporations, so you can pretty much guess how oligarchist is it. Fox News is by far THE WORST. They spin news to fit the neoconservative point of view, and spew out biased reporting and commentary daily. They make a mockery of journalism which is supposed to be objective, non biased, and non-stereotypical.

Re: Re: News Channels..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And what country are you from?? US is media is mostly owned by a few multinational corporations, so you can pretty much guess how oligarchist is it. Fox News is by far THE WORST. They spin news to fit the neoconservative point of view, and spew out biased reporting and commentary daily. They make a mockery of journalism which is supposed to be objective, non biased, and non-stereotypical.

Don't watch FauxNews - nobody takes it seriously anymore. PBS (Newshour, Charlie Rose, etc.) are probably the best non-biased source in the country short of getting your news directly from CSPAN.

Re: News Channels..

quote:

Originally posted by Purple I cant wait for France to come with its own international news channel!!

France already has its own international news channel. I think it started sometime in the past year

http://www.france24.com/france24Pub...news/world.html

http://www.broadcastnewsroom.com/ar...e.jsp?id=186392

Have obviously BBC (British Broadcasting Company - we pay for it even if you don't watch it) ITN and Channel 4 (the best probably).

Watch EuroNews quite alot too, not much bullshit on that really.

Watched FOX a few times... was so bad it went past funny into pathetic.

In my country the media is owned by lobbyists, who in turn own parts of the government.

It's really no different than most other setups: a few people control the outlets to dictate their needs and wants.

We just go about it in a round-a-bout way, which *can* be good for diversity, but has not been for about half a decade or so.

Re: Re: News Channels..

quote:

Originally posted by Krypton And what country are you from?? US is media is mostly owned by a few multinational corporations, so you can pretty much guess how oligarchist is it. Fox News is by far THE WORST. They spin news to fit the neoconservative point of view, and spew out biased reporting and commentary daily. They make a mockery of journalism which is supposed to be objective, non biased, and non-stereotypical.

Yeah, FOX is definitely pretty bad...

Well, they all are, but FOX is the worst.

In my country journalists aren't sent to detention camps if they critize the government

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles In my country journalists aren't sent to detention camps if they critize the government

Awesome, does that give you the right to tell another country not to do this?

It means that I find the transmissions of the Voice of America, Radio Sawa, BBC World Service, etc. as more credible then the governments that do send their journalists to detention camps.

Next question?

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles It means that I find the transmissions of the Voice of America, Radio Sawa, BBC World Service, etc. as more credible then the governments that do send their journalists to detention camps. Next question?

Obviously..

But you might want to raise your gaurd against our so-called free media...

6 major corps own the majority of all our mass media. That's an AWFULLY small number..

"In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. "
http://www.corporations.org/media/

Watch as the media consolidate their power slowly year after year..


The Big Five of the Media oligarchy..
Ownership chart of the Big 5

In 1983 most Americans got their news from 3 main sources on television: NBC, CBS, and ABC.
We have a plethora of options today from your local tv stations, to the big tv networks, to the news networks, to the webcasts of foreign tv networks, to the internet newspages.
Oh, and there's still a "few" traditional newspapers and magazines out there.

Journalism in America may not be up to par with its counterparts in the UK or Germany, but its still light years ahead of most of the world.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles In 1983 most Americans got their news from 3 main sources on television: NBC, CBS, and ABC.

Says you? Or someone else? Post your source for this stat.

quote:

We have a plethora of options today from your local tv stations, to the big tv networks, to the news networks, to the webcasts of foreign tv networks, to the internet newspages. Oh, and there's still a "few" traditional newspapers and magazines out there.

A plethora? That's laughable. Most of the channels, newspaper, magazines, and other media are owned and controlled by a handful of huge corporations. Does it not alarm you how few people have control of so much? Entertainment, news, music, newspapers, etc...

quote:

Journalism in America may not be up to par with its counterparts in the UK or Germany, but its still light years ahead of most of the world.

Oh, I would agree 100%. The boards of these few companies know EXACTLY what they're doing.. In fact, even the Soviets agreed..

{{{" I have the greatest admiration for your propaganda. Propaganda in the West is carried out by experts who have had the best training in the world -- in the field of advertizing -- and have mastered the techniques with exceptional proficiency ... Yours are subtle and persuasive; ours are crude and obvious ... I think that the fundamental difference between our worlds, with respect to propaganda, is quite simple. You tend to believe yours ... and we tend to disbelieve ours. "
a Soviet correspondent based five years in the U.S.}}}
http://www.thirdworldtraveler.com/M...ia_Control.html

I really need to hurry up with that time machine. Maybe I'll send you to Soviet Russia in the 80s. You can see for yourself how great life was in Moscow when so many people were going hungry, the Rubel crumbled, and so forth.
Or maybe you can just take a quick flight at the present time to North Korea, where there's eating quotas - no more then 2 meals a day. Sadly for you there's no just food restaurants to go to

So yeah, feel free to keep defending the Soviets.
I guess all the major corporations have been dictating to all of our news journalists to cover the 411 on Paris Hilton or OJ. It couldnt possibly b/c the American pubic is interested in such oddities, could it?

As for proof about 1983, are you kidding me? How old are you? Seriously? How do you not know that Fox wasnt around in 1983 on tv? How do you not know most people still didnt have cable back then? How do you not know newspaper readership was already declining prior to 1983? Where did you get your education? you should get a refund...

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles I really need to hurry up with that time machine. Maybe I'll send you to Soviet Russia in the 80s. You can see for yourself how great life was in Moscow when so many people were going hungry, the Rubel crumbled, and so forth. Or maybe you can just take a quick flight at the present time to North Korea, where there's eating quotas - no more then 2 meals a day. Sadly for you there's no just food restaurants to go to So yeah, feel free to keep defending the Soviets. I guess all the major corporations have been dictating to all of our news journalists to cover the 411 on Paris Hilton or OJ. It couldnt possibly b/c the American pubic is interested in such oddities, could it? As for proof about 1983, are you kidding me? How old are you? Seriously? How do you not know that Fox wasnt around in 1983 on tv? How do you not know most people still didnt have cable back then? How do you not know newspaper readership was already declining prior to 1983? Where did you get your education? you should get a refund...

here, let me spoon feed you...

Read my post again...

"Obviously..

But you might want to raise your gaurd against our so-called free media...

6 major corps own the majority of all our mass media. That's an AWFULLY small number..

"In 1983, 50 corporations controlled the vast majority of all news media in the U.S. At the time, Ben Bagdikian was called "alarmist" for pointing this out in his book, The Media Monopoly. In his 4th edition, published in 1992, he wrote "in the U.S., fewer than two dozen of these extraordinary creatures own and operate 90% of the mass media" -- controlling almost all of America's newspapers, magazines, TV and radio stations, books, records, movies, videos, wire services and photo agencies. He predicted then that eventually this number would fall to about half a dozen companies. This was greeted with skepticism at the time. When the 6th edition of The Media Monopoly was published in 2000, the number had fallen to six. Since then, there have been more mergers and the scope has expanded to include new media like the Internet market. More than 1 in 4 Internet users in the U.S. now log in with AOL Time-Warner, the world's largest media corporation.

In 2004, Bagdikian's revised and expanded book, The New Media Monopoly, shows that only 5 huge corporations -- Time Warner, Disney, Murdoch's News Corporation, Bertelsmann of Germany, and Viacom (formerly CBS) -- now control most of the media industry in the U.S. General Electric's NBC is a close sixth. "
http://www.corporations.org/media/

Watch as the media consolidate their power slowly year after year..


The Big Five of the Media oligarchy..
Ownership chart of the Big 5"

See the graph.. It says something. Something that directly refutes your argument..

I find it amusing you don't even comprehend any of my arguments. Now you say I'm defending the Soviets? Are you fucking kidding me? I quoted a critique of our media from the point of view of the Soviets.

I have used source after source after source, and you blow it all off with little shit arguments that come strictly from your line of close-minded opinion, and 99% of the time fail to produce any sources to back what you preach.

If you don't agree with my sources, then refute them DIRECTLY. I will never be jerked by your feeble attempts to insult my intelligence..

Ever heard of AP? The Associated Press has a website:
http://www.ap.org/

That's where we got our news from. Go ahead, call up your local tv station or newspaper and ask them if they use the AP or not. Then call up the BBC or the CBC in Canada and you'll see that they use it too. Some of the media in third world countries? Not as much.
It is up to each tv station, each newspaper, and each radio station to decide what to air when. The big corporations usually only care about pleasing their stockowners/shareholders, and don't dictate the news to our media. Again, that's something that is done in third world countries.
We have companies that air both Sean Hannity and Al Franken shows.

If you've been following media news you'd know that Clear Channel isn't quite as big anymore as it was.
You'd also know that we have satellite radio.
You'd also realize that even if most of the media is owned by a few companies, that is not the same as all of the media is owned by a few companies.
The world is getting smaller as far as the media is concerned and is likely in the hands of multinational companies. As such, it's not the US government that dictates what will air and what won't.

Newspapers and Cable News Networks are consolidating, but there are blogs with greater readership than the New York Times. The internet has revolutionized the news business. The mainstream media may be in just a few hands (cough Murdoch cough) but most Americans are able to and do get their news from alternate sources online. Of course, this has also made the news less reliable and prone to bias...

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Ever heard of AP? The Associated Press has a website: http://www.ap.org/ That's where we got our news from. Go ahead, call up your local tv station or newspaper and ask them if they use the AP or not. Then call up the BBC or the CBC in Canada and you'll see that they use it too. Some of the media in third world countries? Not as much. It is up to each tv station, each newspaper, and each radio station to decide what to air when. The big corporations usually only care about pleasing their stockowners/shareholders, and don't dictate the news to our media. Again, that's something that is done in third world countries. We have companies that air both Sean Hannity and Al Franken shows. If you've been following media news you'd know that Clear Channel isn't quite as big anymore as it was. You'd also know that we have satellite radio. You'd also realize that even if most of the media is owned by a few companies, that is not the same as all of the media is owned by a few companies. The world is getting smaller as far as the media is concerned and is likely in the hands of multinational companies. As such, it's not the US government that dictates what will air and what won't.

Ok, stop...

Are you trying to deny our media is owned by just a handful of corporations? Facts mean nothing to you do they? They have been consolidating the market for years. Didn't you watch as Rupert Murdoch, the owner of Fox News and DOZENS UPON DOZENS of media outlets, bought up the Wall Street Journal?

You'll find the "propaganda model" very interesting..

"The propaganda model attempts to explain such a systemic bias in terms of structural economic causes rather than a conspiracy of people. It argues the bias derives from five "filters" that all published news must pass through which combine to systematically distort news coverage.

1. The first filter, ownership, notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations.
2. The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product � readers and audiences � to other businesses (advertisers), the model would expect them to publish news which would reflect the desires and values of those businesses.
3. In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information.
4. Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups which go after the media for supposed bias and so on when they go out of line.
5. Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism. (Note: in the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion).

The model therefore attempts to describe how the media form a decentralized and non-conspiratorial but nonetheless very powerful propaganda system, that is able to mobilize an "�lite" consensus, frame public debate within "�lite" perspectives and at the same time give the appearance of democratic consent."

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Propaganda_model

The propaganda model is extremely flawed.
Despite the media's so called reliance on the goverrment and big business, you see plenty of articles that will criticize every fraction of the government. You'll also see editorials on big business, and specific companies. What was Enron?

The biggest flaw of the propaganda model is that its very sterile of human character. Its within our nature to be curious, and to seek out the truth. This is different from conspiracy theorists which simply seek to shock and blame people.

One of the biggest companies in the country is NBC. When their ratings tumble Jay Leno has no problem bringing it up in his monologues.

Furthermore, you're a libertarian. You're supposed to let the world run the way it wants, and let the market dictate its actions. Well, the market has led to this consolidating frenzy.
The market can also be both cruel and kind to music artists. When the Dixie Chicks critized the president a lot of Country statoons immediately pulled them off their playlists b/c listeners were threatening to boycott stations that played them.
On the other hand Top 40 and Adult Contemporary stations became more receptive towards the Dixie Chicks, so again the market dictated what it wanted to see happening.

100-150 years ago there were no tv stations, no radio stations, and most cities didnt have more then a couple of newspapers b/c there were still a lot of uneducated illitirates (don't ask for proof - go to the library if you don't believe me)
Over time, the free market allowed for the newspaper industry to boom, then radio, then television, etc.

The truth is that the big companies have NO CONTROL whatsoever over the news in our time b/c as Lebezniatnikov popinted out we have the internet. If there's a shooting going on in your neighborhood and you have a camera you can film the incident, and post it on youtube. It's there for the whole world to see.
If you feel your story is important enough but the commercial media doesn't care you can always contact non-commercial radio stations or public tv stations in your area. If they don't think it'll interest their viewers/listeners chances are your story wa prolly not that big of a deal to most from the start.

quote:

The propaganda model is extremely flawed.

Based on what model?

Did you even read my reply? Or are you a robot?

I clearly wrote the following

The biggest flaw of the propaganda model is that its very sterile of human character. Its within our nature to be curious, and to seek out the truth. This is different from conspiracy theorists which simply seek to shock and blame people.
I then also mentioned the internet.

If you want to talk about models, I'd prefer to do it in Paris, South Beach, or Milan where plenty of models worthy of intense intimate studying are prancing the streets

Let me further link you to another thread I started yesterday.
http://www.tranceaddict.com/forums/showthread.php?threadid=439330&forumid=66&s=

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Did you even read my reply? Or are you a robot? I clearly wrote the following The biggest flaw of the propaganda model is that its very sterile of human character. Its within our nature to be curious, and to seek out the truth. This is different from conspiracy theorists which simply seek to shock and blame people. I then also mentioned the internet. If you want to talk about models, I'd prefer to do it in Paris, South Beach, or Milan where plenty of models worthy of intense intimate studying are prancing the streets

Yes I read your reply..

But sadly, your personal opinion does not demonstrate how the propaganda model is wrong. So by what model of economics would the propaganda model be wrong? If we were having this debate in a university auditorium, it would be natural to back up your claims with academic sources. Sorry I'm not going to dumb myself down to speculative opinions and arguments. I want FACTS. Not your speculation.

Tell ya what. I'll list out the 5 filters of the propaganda model, you explain IN DETAIL why each of these filters is not true. Please review each filter, understand what each means, and provide your arguments preferably in line with an alternative model of reference (otherwise i have no use to debate you on this one). Here goes...

1. Ownership of the medium
The first filter, ownership, notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations.

2. Medium's funding sources
The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product � readers and audiences � to other businesses (advertisers), the model would expect them to publish news which would reflect the desires and values of those businesses.

3. Sourcing
In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information.

4. Flak
Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups which go after the media for supposed bias and so on when they go out of line.

5. Anti-communist ideology
Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism. (Note: in the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion).
------------------------------------

Please answer in bullet form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Newsflash! This is not a university auditorium, and I have my own style of writing.
some people on this board constantly just pick a part piece by pece of someone else's reply. This is not the style of writing that fits me best.
I usually prefer to write concisely and to the point, and tackle the issues at large. If I see a specific need to go deeper then that I will, but with this model I simply I don't. I shot it down for what it is - a propaganda model.

quote:

Originally posted by CHRles Newsflash! This is not a university auditorium, and I have my own style of writing. some people on this board constantly just pick a part piece by pece of someone else's reply. This is not the style of writing that fits me best. I usually prefer to write concisely and to the point, and tackle the issues at large. If I see a specific need to go deeper then that I will, but with this model I simply I don't. I shot it down for what it is - a propaganda model.

I see... Opinions don't matter when you're attempting to debunk an economic model. Unless you have another economic model to challenge and SUPPORT your opinions to the propaganda model, then your "concise" reply is nothing more than speculation... I restated the argument, and allowed you to address each aspect of the model to which you now refuse. So much for gettin "shot down"... I'll give you one more chance..If you take it, I might actually have some respect for you and listen to what you have to say..

quote:

Tell ya what. I'll list out the 5 filters of the propaganda model, you explain IN DETAIL why each of these filters is not true. Please review each filter, understand what each means, and provide your arguments preferably in line with an alternative model of reference (otherwise i have no use to debate you on this one). Here goes... 1. Ownership of the medium The first filter, ownership, notes that most major media outlets are owned by large corporations. 2. Medium's funding sources The second, funding, notes that the outlets derive the majority of their funding from advertising, not readers. Thus, since they are profit-oriented businesses selling a product � readers and audiences � to other businesses (advertisers), the model would expect them to publish news which would reflect the desires and values of those businesses. 3. Sourcing In addition, the news media are dependent on government institutions and major businesses with strong biases as sources (the third filter) for much of their information. 4. Flak Flak, the fourth filter, refers to the various pressure groups which go after the media for supposed bias and so on when they go out of line. 5. Anti-communist ideology Norms, the fifth filter, refer to the common conceptions shared by those in the profession of journalism. (Note: in the original text, published in 1988, the fifth filter was "anticommunism". However, with the fall of the Soviet Union, it has been broadened to allow for shifts in public opinion). ------------------------------------ Please answer in bullet form 1, 2, 3, 4, 5.

Powered by: vBulletin
Copyright © 2000-2021, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.