"Main Stream Media" Condemnation - just a case of not wanting to hear bad news?

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.

It's a case of /wanting/ to hear actual news.

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.

When a person reads and listens to a wide array of news outlets including overseas publications once becomes aware that some outlets choose not to report certain stories. When a pattern develops of not reporting a certain type of story and yet over-reporting the opposite kind, it doesn't take a rocket scientist to discern the agenda. Many of us who are conservative no longer pay for a local newspaper due to the inherent bias day after day week after week. Why pay for propaganda. Therefore, the cable TV, internet, and library offer the fairness necessary to make informed decisions. Fox News is hated by the left, yet it is the number one cable news network. Are the millions who watch Fox doing so because the body snatchers re-programmed their intellect - no - it's because they want news they won't get elsewhere. 10 million people watches O'Reilly interview Hillary Clinton. That's a lot of eyeballs tuning in to the hated Fox channel. Wise up.

So in other words, you don't believe that it's the media's fault for putting "spin" on news stories in order to boost ratings, but that it's the news itself that is giving reporters a bad name? And that Americans are seeking other outlets of news that is more agreeable with them because they don't like the news they hear? Sorry sweatheart......you have a very pretty avatar picture, but I'm not buying it. Our mainstream media cares about one thing and one thing only. And that's ratings. Otherwise we'd have actual news anchors, not "personalities" like Chris Mathews or Bill O'Reilly who are targeting a specific audience.

LOL! The girls takes the time and makes the effort to use a glamor shot as an avatar, then gets upset when somebody calls her "pretty". Go figure!

I came the conclusion long ago that so long as it is a person giving me the news it's subject to interpretation. It is unavoidable that a person in the news media will put their own personal touch and therefore their own spin on the news. I do not fault them for this, I just realize it to be a unavoidable fact.

The same reason I don't believe everything on MS-NBC are the same reasons I don't believe everything I see on Fox News. Though they may have decidedly different ways of presenting the news my interest is in the raw data, not the spin.

I think the real problem is that bad news sells better than good news. The various news services have much more competition than they used to and they deliver the news that will get them the highest ratings or readership.

News is big business and profits drive their business just like any other.

I wish mainstream media news were true, I wouldn't have to go digging on the internet when their news doesn't make any sense, and it doesn't make any sense most of the time. I don't understand why do you think they can only report the truth. You're problem is that you're too lazy to look for it yourself. Mainstream media news omissions are just as bad as a lying, and they aren't just telling lies but controlling your mind.

One of the most common examples of mind control in our so-called free and civilized society is the advent and usage of the television set. This isn't to say that all things on TV are geared towards brainwashing you. They're not. But most of the programming on television today is run by the largest media corporations that have interests in defense contracts, such as Westinghouse (CBS), and General Electric (NBC). This makes perfect sense when you see how slanted and warped the news is today. Examining the conflicts of interest is merely glancing at the issue, although to understand the multiple ways that lies become truth, we need to examine the techniques of brainwashing that the networks are employing.

Propaganda techniques were first codified and applied in a scientific manner by journalist Walter Lippman and psychologist Edward Bernays (nephew of Sigmund Freud) early in the 20th century. During World War I, Lippman and Bernays were hired by then United States President, Woodrow Wilson, to participate in the Creel Commission, the mission of which was to sway popular opinion in favor of entering the war, on the side of Britain. Edward Bernays said in his 1928 book Propaganda,

"The conscious and intelligent manipulation of the organized habits and opinions of the masses is an important element in democratic society. Those who manipulate this unseen mechanism of society constitute an invisible government which is the true ruling power of our country."

The Creel Commission provided themes for speeches by "four-minute men" at public functions, and also encouraged censorship of the American press. The Commission was so unpopular that after the war, Congress closed it down without providing funding to organize and archive its papers. The war propaganda campaign of Lippman and Bernays produced within six months such an intense anti-German hysteria as to permanently impress American business (and Adolf Hitler, among others) with the potential of large-scale propaganda to control public opinion. Bernays coined the terms "group mind" and "engineering consent", important concepts in practical propaganda work. The current public relations industry is a direct outgrowth of Lippman's and Bernays' work and is still used extensively by the United States government. For the first half of the 20th century Bernays and Lippman ran a very successful public relations firm. World War II saw continued use of propaganda as a weapon of war, both by Hitler's propagandist Joseph Gobbles and the British Political Warfare Executive, as well as the United States Office of War Information.

Turn on your local newscast. You have a few minutes of blue-collar crime, hardly any white collar crime, a few minutes of sports, misc. chit chat, random political jibber-jabber, and a look at the weather that no one is forecasting correctly. Is that what happened in your town? And we're supposed to own the airwaves! The mainstream media openly supports the interests of the prison industrial complex. The stories focus on minority criminal groups, and exploit the real threat to appear much more dangerous than they are. Think about the growing per capita number of prisoners in the country. Then remember that this is happening at the same time that our prison boom began. The police on our streets have created criminals. The focus is to keep us in a state of fear, that way the elitists can attack any group they want to without fear of consequence. This is why the media is continuing to craft the timeless art of dehumanization.