Do you trust mainstream media?

[DiogenesTheWiser]

There was zero direct revenue. Zero.

Many TV shows had Geritol and other logos in the background.

No direct revenue, no direct revenue influence.

That's why it was news.

I'm afraid you're mistaken. Companies like Geritol and many others underwrote news programs. Sounds like you could benefit from a basic university-level history of journalism class.

News is produced. Anything that is produced can be commodified and usually is in America. News has and always will be a production designed to generate profits. And if you refuse to accept that historical and current reality, then I have to conclude that you're just being pollyannaish.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Sounds like you could benefit from a basic university-level history of journalist class

Class of '76


You? Or do you just read internet posts?

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

So I'm not convincing you, but maybe my friend Daniel Hallin can. He writes: "News has always mixed the serious and the entertaining. The tension between journalism and commercialism goes back long before television, but it is felt with special intensity in television news today" in the article linked below:

http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/whatever-happened-news

 

[Big_Lou]

What shape is the earth?

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

Class of '76


You? Or do you just read internet posts?

I read many of the things that I provide links for, and I read these nifty things called "books," which are usually written by experts like economists, journalists, political scientists, historians, philosophers, etc. But I'm afraid I cannot post the link to a whole book because I still prefer the old timey editions that I have mailed to me (or I check them out from the library via interlibrary loan).

 

[tangerinegreen555]

I read many of the things that I provide links for, and I read these nifty things called "books," which are usually written by experts like economists, journalists, political scientists, historians, philosophers, etc. But I'm afraid I cannot post the link to a whole book because I still prefer the old timey editions that I have mailed to me (or I check them out from the library via interlibrary loan).

You read internet BS and buy into it. And then try to spread it here.

News has and always will be a production designed to generate profits.

Revisionist lie. Good bye.

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

Class of '76


You? Or do you just read internet posts?

Anyway.

You're a jerk, you know that. I kindly pointed out how your postings on this thread don't add up to much because they're based on this really childish assumption that news is some how outside of the bounds of commercialization and that just flies in the face of reality.

I hate to be the one to break it to ya, but news is and always has been about selling adverts. It doesn't matter quite so much what's stated as "news" according to the owners of news organizations. However, it does matter if people are consuming it because that helps them sell ads, and that keeps their profits high.

Why get involved in some kind of business like journalism if you're not going to make any money off of it? Why would Hearst, Pulitzer, Ted Turner, Roger Ailes, etc. get into the business of journalism if it wasn't already a huge profit producer.

Despite your graduation date and how old you are, I'm probably the only person here who worked for a news organization. Shortly after I graduated from Georgetown, I worked as a copy editor and later as a education reporter for the Washington Post.

Nobody ever told me what to write while I was there, but the entire news room was dominated by the quest for profits.

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

You read internet BS and buy into it. And then try to spread it here.



Revisionist lie. Good bye.

Explain to me how the links I've provided are BS. What's BS about it? Just because it does not conform to your flawed sense of reality? Does that make it BS?

Fucking Trump-loving dimwit. There's a reason why you guys are called "low information" voters.

 

[Big_Lou]

Class of '76


You? Or do you just read internet posts?

So I'm not convincing you, but maybe my friend Daniel Hallin can. He writes: "News has always mixed the serious and the entertaining. The tension between journalism and commercialism goes back long before television, but it is felt with special intensity in television news today" in the article linked below:

http://www.medialit.org/reading-room/whatever-happened-news

I read many of the things that I provide links for, and I read these nifty things called "books," which are usually written by experts like economists, journalists, political scientists, historians, philosophers, etc. But I'm afraid I cannot post the link to a whole book because I still prefer the old timey editions that I have mailed to me (or I check them out from the library via interlibrary loan).

You read internet BS and buy into it. And then try to spread it here.



Revisionist lie. Good bye.

Anyway.

You're a jerk, you know that. I kindly pointed out how your postings on this thread don't add up to much because they're based on this really childish assumption that news is some how outside of the bounds of commercialization and that just flies in the face of reality.

I hate to be the one to break it to ya, but news is and always has been about selling adverts. It doesn't matter quite so much what's stated as "news" according to the owners of news organizations. However, it does matter if people are consuming it because that helps them sell ads, and that keeps their profits high.

Why get involved in some kind of business like journalism if you're not going to make any money off of it? Why would Hearst, Pulitzer, Ted Turner, Roger Ailes, etc. get into the business of journalism if it wasn't already a huge profit producer.

Despite your graduation date and how old you are, I'm probably the only person here who worked for a news organization. Shortly after I graduated from Georgetown, I worked as a copy editor and later as a education reporter for the Washington Post.

Nobody ever told me what to write while I was there, but the entire news room was dominated by the quest for profits.

 

[DiogenesTheWiser]

I can tell that you guys are pot smokers. There's a reason why people call it "dope."

 

[Big_Lou]

Fucking Trump-loving dimwit. There's a reason why you guys are called "low information" voters.

Oh dear, you really are a tragically clueless dolt.

I can tell that you guys are pot smokers. There's a reason why people call it "dope."

!!COP ALERT!!

 

[SneekyNinja]

I can tell that you guys are pot smokers. There's a reason why people call it "dope."

Yeah, because the neurotransmitter involved is called dopamine, retard.

 

[Padawanbater2]

CNN is neutral as you say, WTF is wrong with that? Some of their shows display some opinion, their straight news doesn't.

News should not be neutral, it should be objective. Take climate change, FOX would have on a full panel of climate change deniers and one "liberal" yes-man like Juan Williams or Bob Beckel, an uninformed viewer would most likely reach the conclusion climate change isn't real, isn't serious, or there's nothing we can do about it anyway so it doesn't matter. CNN would have a climate scientist "debate" a shill like Marsha Blackburn leaving the uninformed viewer with the belief it's a 50/50 probability, you decide!

That is uninforming people of the reality of the actual situation. On the issue of climate change, it isn't 50/50, it's more like 99/1, so portraying it like that is irresponsible for any credible news organization to do.

 

[tangerinegreen555]

News should not be neutral, it should be objective. Take climate change, FOX would have on a full panel of climate change deniers and one "liberal" yes-man like Juan Williams or Bob Beckel, an uninformed viewer would most likely reach the conclusion climate change isn't real, isn't serious, or there's nothing we can do about it anyway so it doesn't matter. CNN would have a climate scientist "debate" a shill like Marsha Blackburn leaving the uninformed viewer with the belief it's a 50/50 probability, you decide!

That is uninforming people of the reality of the actual situation. On the issue of climate change, it isn't 50/50, it's more like 99/1, so portraying it like that is irresponsible for any credible news organization to do.

You know global warming is real, and I know global warming is real.

The oil companies know global warming is real, they've been studying it for years and creating tobacco company style disinformation.

The MSM reported it, we saw it.

You can't force people to believe it.

It's not MSM's job to do anything other than report the news.

Not to be confused with opinion shows that spin like a top.

 

[Padawanbater2]

You know global warming is real, and I know global warming is real.

The oil companies know global warming is real, they've been studying it for years and creating tobacco company style disinformation.

The MSM reported it, we saw it.

You can't force people to believe it.

It's not MSM's job to do anything other than report the news.

Not to be confused with opinion shows that spin like a top.

Why do you think a significant portion of Americans don't believe it? You and I accept it because we get information outside mainstream media

A neutrality bias is not reporting the news when what they're reporting is not neutral. It's not an opinion, it's a scientific fact. Reporting it as if both sides are equal is misinforming people. Do you think it's CNN's responsibility to misinform people?

 

[tangerinegreen555]

Why do you think a significant portion of Americans don't believe it? You and I accept it because we get information outside mainstream media

A neutrality bias is not reporting the news when what they're reporting is not neutral. It's not an opinion, it's a scientific fact. Reporting it as if both sides are equal is misinforming people. Do you think it's CNN's responsibility to misinform people?

I don't see it that way at all. CNN reports the news. CNN does not generate republican votes. They try to be objective and remain politically neutral.

Virtually every piece they do has 'too liberal' and 'too conservative' complaints'.

Their conservative commentators (i.e. Jeffery Lord) are allowed to speak.

If you believe the shit that comes out of his mouth, you've probably voted republican for years.

I really don't want MSM to take sides, just report the facts. People who don't have a grip on facts got Trump in.

People are somewhat stupid in this country. If you think MSM can educate them, take a ride through Texas and the deep south sometime.

There are areas of this country that are utterly hopeless when it comes to facts.

It's gotten worse in the computer age where any idiot can start a bullshit web site and claim it to be true. Not to mention FB info trees. You can't fix stupid. Neither can MSM reporting.

You notice how Trump combats MSM by calling it 'fake news'? And people believe that shit?

 

[SneekyNinja]

I don't see it that way at all. CNN reports the news. CNN does not generate republican votes. They try to be objective and remain politically neutral.

Virtually every piece they do has 'too liberal' and 'too conservative' complaints'.

Their conservative commentators (i.e. Jeffery Lord) are allowed to speak.

If you believe the shit that comes out of his mouth, you've probably voted republican for years.

I really don't want MSM to take sides, just report the facts. People who don't have a grip on facts got Trump in.

People are somewhat stupid in this country. If you think MSM can educate them, take a ride through Texas and the deep south sometime.

There are areas of this country that are utterly hopeless when it comes to facts.

It's gotten worse in the computer age where any idiot can start a bullshit web site and claim it to be true. Not to mention FB info trees. You can't fix stupid. Neither can MSM reporting.

You notice how Trump combats MSM by calling it 'fake news'? And people believe that shit?

You used the word "facts" too many times, you filthy Liberal.

 

[Flowki]

News is less impartial by the year, mainly by what they choose not to show. I believe it has been that way for a long time, we didn't have the perspective the internet can provide. The internet is also being reigned in and controlled. Watts app imo is the latest platform that will have it's freedom yet confidentiality and immunity to mainstream spam attacked. Both face book and YouTube are long down that path. That's the pattern I've noticed. People are creatures of habit and we do like to copy what others are doing. When something becomes popular (fb) it also becomes a dependency to the many, many people using it. The owners can somewhat, by regulation.. dictate the information accessible to the masses because of this. YouTube is a better example of that, it is more and more like tv with adverts to the highest bidder (in what ever form that may be). Recommended news or general vids on YouTube often leads back to mainstream gateways these days. The whole ''we only recommend what we think you like to see depending on what you watch'' is absolute bs as it's rigged to get you there within a few clicks of any random shit. I don't know if that rig is intentional or a by product of the advertising cash cow, kinda obvious who has the most money to play that game.

You also have recommended mainstream you tubers now <insert your genre>. They are to you tube what your typical news/entertainment program is to tv.

 

[UncleBuck]

News is less impartial by the year, mainly by what they choose not to show. I believe it has been that way for a long time, we didn't have the perspective the internet can provide. The internet is also being reigned in and controlled. Watts app imo is the latest platform that will have it's freedom yet confidentiality and immunity to mainstream spam attacked. Both face book and YouTube are long down that path. That's the pattern I've noticed. People are creatures of habit and we do like to copy what others are doing. When something becomes popular (fb) it also becomes a dependency to the many, many people using it. The owners can somewhat, by regulation.. dictate the information accessible to the masses because of this. YouTube is a better example of that, it is more and more like tv with adverts to the highest bidder (in what ever form that may be). Recommended news or general vids on YouTube often leads back to mainstream gateways these days. The whole ''we only recommend what we think you like to see depending on what you watch'' is absolute bs as it's rigged to get you there within a few clicks of any random shit.

You also have mainstream you tubers now. They are to you tube what your typical news/entertainment program is to tv.

oh look. a holocaust denier who gets all of his information from youtube videos and doesn't trust the mainstream media.

the far leftists are in the same category as this guy.

sad.

 

[Padawanbater2]

I don't see it that way at all. CNN reports the news. CNN does not generate republican votes. They try to be objective and remain politically neutral.

How can you be objective and remain politically neutral about anthropogenic climate change?