Sorry for not giving the HTML for the source, simply slipped my mind.
Quote:
|
this has much to do with the logic of vertical integration of media outlets, if you think about it: cuts in staff sizes, the elimination of independent news gathering capabilities in the interest of generating greater profits for the large corporations that dominate newspaper and television--and on the pressure this type of profit-oriented organization places on independent news outlets. it's capitalism in action, kids--the lowest quality that you can get away with that appeals to the greatest number--that driven not by a desire for accuracy, not by any belief that a functional democracy requires good information, but instead by the usual logic of increased shareholder value uber alles. so news is a commodity like any other, and lowering costs is necessarily a good thing for all concerned. this is a fine example of the way capitalism in its present form "floats all boats" aint it---so in the interest of maximizing shareholder profits, we get "news" that is drawn from the hall of mirrors of wire services, repeated without necessarily fact checking--why?--because it's cheaper than having staffs that do the work themselves.
|
That logic does not stand up in my opinion. If the greedy fatcats cut their costs down to maximize profits they are digging their own grave. They know that public respect for their word are all that their paychecks come from. This should make them believe even stronger in digging for the truth, instead this is a simple case of wanting to believe it so bad they blind themselves.
Quote:
|
but as usual, the inferences made on the basis of this case are wholly worthless: it proves nothing at all about any systematic bias of any kind because it presents no evidence concerning such bias---and you'd think claims like "the mainstream media is anti-israel"---which is preposterous in the american context---would require some type of argument, wouldn't you? and that argument would have to refer to evidence, and that evidence would have to symmetrical with the claims made about it....there is nothing of the sort in either the op or the blog linked in the op.
|
If this was the only occurance of it I would not cry bias. The fact that the news reporters knowingly put the same people in multiple pictures clearly shows intentional deceit. The way I haven't seen a single photo of an Israeli house that was bombed, yet the same house in Lebanon is said to have been destroyed on 4 separate dates clearly shows bias. The way reporters around the world believe this obvious fraud shows negligence and bias.
Quote:
|
Even if the stories were faked, why is that a problem? The US media lies about US military and political stuff all the time, and recently it's mostly benifited the not-so-liberal side. Remember Jessica Lynch? Yeah, she was being treated by Iraqi doctors, and even recieved a transfusion of Iraqi blood. She was not rescued by brave soldiers defending her from evil insurgents or terrorists, she was escorted out by her Iraqi doctor, and there were no Iraqi militants in the building. She was not mistreated, and the rescue was staged. This is common practice. It's dispicable, and those who are guilty of fabrication should be punished, but it's commonplace. If we are to say, "Stop trying to mislead people via the media", we should pay closer attention to our own actions. I don't want to be a hypocrite, and I suspect that no one else does, either.
|
I agree Jessica Lynch was a shameless PR stunt. What I'm trying to point out is not misleading statements by obvious political factions, it's the supposably unbiased neutral media which shows its true colors in situations like this.