"Main Stream Media" Condemnation - just a case of not wanting to hear bad news?
Only in the past few decades has this really been the case, but often, when people don't like what a news story has to say, they blame the "main stream media" for it.
Isn't it really the truth that the media can only report what's there to report, and that maybe the problems lie deeper than just the "main stream media"?
Is the increasing desire to listen to off-the-wall, incredible and unproven stories printed in blogs and partisan publications just an indication that Americans only want to hear news if it agrees with their own limited world view?
2008-05-07T09:07:23Z
Drew - keep your comments about my looks to yourself and stick to answering the question. I have yet to see anyone offer proof that the main stream media is responsible for the political unrest in this country. The media can only report what happens.
2008-05-07T09:08:11Z
tess: I agree, but since conservatives don't consider Fox News to be "main stream media," neither do I. It's a tabloid news show. No better than Entertainment Tonight.
Phil M2008-05-07T09:11:06Z
Favorite Answer
there is bias in reporting, but generally they try to remain as factually accurate as possible....otherwise they run the risk of being seen as frauds and losing their job (like dan rather).
The increasing desire for blogs, editorials/columnists and partisan publications is a clear sign of people wanting news to fit their opinion, not fitting their opinion to the news. It also has do with the simple fact that the internet is pretty much unregulated, you can say whatever the hell you want to say and there aren't any reprecussions for the most part.
this will change and it should in the future. You shouldn't be allowed to tarnish and destroy people's lives just because its the internet. Whether the intent is to harm or merely to profit, its wrong either way.
------------------------------------- "Jeff Smoker" when in 1994 did this occur? If it happened around the same time as a major national story it wont make national news......you know, like the OJ murder/trial, WTC trial, etc
I agree that there is a certain amount of truth to your statement. The media can't report "John McCain Wins the Nomination" unless John McCain actually wins the nomination. However, you are ignoring some variables.
1. Ratings - Generally, news programs that stick to just merely reporting facts do not do so well. People tend to find them boring, and will thus watch more sensationalized alternatives. Therefore, all news programs, whether mainstream or alternative, fall somewhat victim to sensationalization.
2. The natural bias in people - I believe it has been documented (although I will admit that I cannot say where or when) that 85% of journalists describe themselves as liberal. As such, their own natural tendencies might cause them to lead off with stories such as "Car bomb kills four in Baghdad" and bury a story like "Kurds enjoying new prosperity in post-Saddam Iraq."
I will admit that people sometimes blow this out of proportion, and make main-stream media seem like the boogeyman. However, I also don't think it is as pure as the driven snow, either.
And, all network news are prettymuch mainstream - yeah, even Fox, it may have a conservative bias rather than a liberal one, but it's still irresponisible 'infotainment,' meant only to sell ad time, not real journalism.
But you are right, outside the mainstream, you get a lot of made-up 'news' that's just what one raving radical wants to say, and other raving radicals want to hear. And, it is true that people hear the news they want to hear. That's why a lib and a con listening to the same story may both call it 'biased' against them.
But, it's also true that the media /does/ prefer to deliver a sensational, divisive story, rather than an accurate, boring one. That often means taking things out of context or leaving out or de-emphasizing the more reasonable parts of a story.
Because Fox News has cried "Wolf!" far too many times to be taken seriously. If one only watches Fox News and believes conservative radio, that person is never exposed to the truth. Here are a couple of examples: 1. Fox viewers would swear the IRS singled out Tea Party groups, because they're never told that Darrel Issa ordered his investigator to ignore all but Tea Party cases. Turns out more progressive groups were investigated and were the only ones to be denied preferred tax status. 2. Every single guest on Fox News railing about how Obamacare has hurt them has been proven to be lying. Every one of them. From the Koch Brothers' Lupus Lady to the owner of Papa John's. 3. Fox viewers don't get that their favorite channel donates more to the Democrats than the Republicans. At least one of their highest-profile conservative hosts regularly votes Democrat. Fox uses their viewers' ignorance to line their pockets. 4. Benghazi!!! Fast and Furious! War on Christmas! They're coming to take your guns! Are you scared yet? Islam! The Knockout Game! Christians are being discriminated against! How 'bout now? Death Panels! NSA snooping! Welfare abuse! O-ba-ma-care! If you're not too scared to change the channel now, you must be among the 54% of Fox News viewers who fully understand Fox News is not a "news" network.
I can see what you mean to a certain extent but there is no denying that the "mainstream media" decides what they are going to report and in what light they will report it. For example, in 1994 in a medium sized city in South Carolina twelve to fourteen young black teens jumped a white 12 year old boy riding his bike. They beat him to the point of requiring extensive hospital care, and stole his bike. Do you remember hearing about that? I have the opinion that if the races had been reversed the story would have been national news for two weeks.
When is the last time you saw Katie Couric doing a story about a citizen who defended themselves sucessfully against an attack with a firearm? It happens nearly everyday, yet goes un-reported.