Us Media has not the spine it was born with. Discuss - Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community

manalone · 06-25-2003, 12:02 PM

London independent article

(Too long imo to reproduce here)

Synopsis: The British Media is more willing to attack its leaders than the US Media. Interestingly, the root of this difference is seen as a remaining belief in the reliability of the office of the Presidency and Government in general.

My thoughts
Interesting. I have enormous criticisms of the Fourth Estate. I think that as a group they have never lived up to their ideals in an important way. They remain a fundamentally flawed and critically corrupt element of society.

The US Media strike me as infinitely worse than any other free press. The cancerous partisanship that tears American society up
is resident in it fetid splendour writing puff pieces about criminals and ignoring important facts while US Homeland "Security" scares everyone into place.

America is a land of great opportunity and wonderment, but she has fallen in love with her corporations and left her people behind.
Her real voice, the Media, is controlled by, what, 5 companies? All of whom are major Bush sponsors?

end rambling

Q1. a) read the article and (optionally the rant after it) and think.
b) read any replies.
c) The reasons stated are i) true ii) untrue iii) other. Discuss,
giving examples.

Please do not attempt to shout others down or be obscene. Engage brain then type. You have 3 weeks. You may begin.

Conclamo Ludus · 06-25-2003, 12:26 PM

Media is continually failing. Part of the reason is that people's opinions find their way into anything. Left or Right and most people never see the bias that they agree with. There are no unbiased sources and there never will be. The only fair and balanced report you'll ever see is with your own two eyes and even that will be painted with whatever brush your experiences in life will tell you. I get my media from as many sources as I can and even then I expect there to be unanswered questions.

British news media tends to lean to the left more. I say let biases be biases, you'll never be somewhere without them.
Here's some links on British media biases (of course you have to ask if they come from biased sources

)

BBC accused of anti-war stance

Backlash against BBC for anti-US bias

Remember its not biased if you agree with it!

Here's one from everyone's favorite Fair & Balanced Fox News

O'reilly sucks .com

Interesting article, thanks for the post.

4thTimeLucky · 06-25-2003, 01:00 PM

Ooh Ooh I was reading that article on the train this morning and thought it was ideal TFP fodder. God was clearly listening to my thoughts.

I really think it hits home with a good point.
Regardless of BBC's biases - and of course it has some, its an organisation of people afterall - the British press seem to be *FAR* more questioning and critical of the government/establishment. News presenters (e.g. Jeremy Paxman ) gain fame and a reputation for their ability to use sharp analytical thought and rigorous research to put MPs on the ropes. They have an Anne Robinson fierceness in their pursuit of the truth. American politicians get far too easy a time. George Bush wouldn't last five seconds in English politics.

Charlatan · 06-25-2003, 01:24 PM

I don't think this is an issue of biases at all. Of course there are biases. Journalists should strive for objectivity in their reporting and for the most part this is achieved.

Where the journalism has gone off the rails is the increasing inability (unwillingness) to ask the difficult question. Why is this happening in the US?

I don't have the article to back it up but I remember a journalist that asked a difficult question of Bush Sr. around the time of Gulf War I. Bush dodged the question and the reporter pressed the issue. Bush took umbrage that he was being "hounded" (my word).

The result? The reporter was banned from future press conferences and summarily fired.

Cut off from the information source (ie where you get your scoop) and fired.

The reality is that since WWII the US press has pretty much towed the line as far as access to the white house is concerned. If you want to continue to be invited to their press briefings you don't ask difficult questions. If you can't attend those briefings you don't get the coverage needed to compete with the other journalist (or news organization if you want to take a broader look at this).

Daniel Boorstin wrote a great book that speaks directly to this called The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Amazingly he wrote it in 1961.

He felt that the US was losing touch with the real world and more importantly the very things that made America strong. He felt that real ideal were being replaced with contrivance... Interesting book.

In the end, what I am getting at, in a rather round about way is that the US is more concerned with the surface of things than digging any deeper. Gloss and good image is everything. In depth is too cerebral and therefore bad.

Fade · 06-25-2003, 01:43 PM

great point, and I think that this may have started around the time of the cold war crisis, when the media was kept out. They think that by skipping over the hard questions, more will be revealed, when is essence our politicians are beginning to get the idea that their power stretches farther than it really should.

Easytiger · 06-25-2003, 02:38 PM

I was pretty impressed with the article. On the whole I find the British media to be invasive, cruel and extremely harsh, but at least they have the courage to ask the hard questions- and in times like these, hard questions need to be asked.

monkyebrain_80 · 06-25-2003, 10:49 PM

you all have good points!

tricks · 06-25-2003, 10:58 PM

It's all about the bottom line. Money and ratings. Tittilation, scandal and shock. It's entertainment ment to draw you in, not news to inform and enlighten.

Conclamo Ludus · 06-26-2003, 07:51 AM

Quote:

Originally posted by 4thTimeLucky
Ooh Ooh I was reading that article on the train this morning and thought it was ideal TFP fodder. God was clearly listening to my thoughts.

I really think it hits home with a good point.
Regardless of BBC's biases - and of course it has some, its an organisation of people afterall - the British press seem to be *FAR* more questioning and critical of the government/establishment. News presenters (e.g. Jeremy Paxman ) gain fame and a reputation for their ability to use sharp analytical thought and rigorous research to put MPs on the ropes. They have an Anne Robinson fierceness in their pursuit of the truth. American politicians get far too easy a time. George Bush wouldn't last five seconds in English politics.

I agree with you for the most part. Especially about the English politics. When was the last time you saw a U.S. President stand in front of congress while they all shouted whatever they wanted to at him. I really enjoy watching the House of Commons on C-SPAN. Its amazing how the English politicians can think on their feet. Its pretty refreshing to watch.

Charlatan · 06-26-2003, 07:57 AM

The Parlimentary system is certainly good for rigorous debate.

Political leaders need to be taken to task. They need to answer the difficult questions. Too often they seem all to comfortable in the position of spin.

Is there even a venue in the US where the President can be officially questioned (by other political leaders?) and where he is there to answer back?

Daval · 06-26-2003, 12:18 PM

I agree. The Canadian and British political systems and media are certainly a lot harder on the leaders. They are held much more accountable in public.

Conclamo Ludus · 06-27-2003, 05:52 AM

This just came in over Drudge Report this morning. Bare-knuckled reporting is not without its controversy, even in England.

Reuter's Link

Quote:

British Government Takes Gloves Off in BBC Battle
Thu June 26, 2003 09:03 PM ET
By Katherine Baldwin

LONDON (Reuters) - The British government, locked in a battle with the BBC over a claim officials doctored intelligence on Iraq, challenged the state broadcaster on Thursday to answer questions on its reporting standards.

Alastair Campbell, Prime Minister Tony Blair's communications supremo, has been accused by the British Broadcasting Corporation of "sexing up" a dossier on Iraq's weapons that helped build the case for war.

But Campbell, who in turn has accused the BBC of biased reporting on Iraq and of slandering his name, gave the BBC until the end of Thursday to respond to more than a dozen questions about the allegation and its general working practices.

Blair's office has weighed in on Campbell's side but refuses to say what action it will take if the BBC fails, in its words, to "set the record straight."

"A highly damaging allegation was made that went right to the heart of the integrity of the government on a very important issue," Blair's spokesman said on Thursday.

The spat -- by no means the first between British governments and the state broadcaster -- erupted after the BBC, citing an anonymous intelligence source, said Campbell had pressed the security services to include a claim in a September dossier that Iraq's weapons could be deployed within 45 minutes.

Iraq's alleged weapons of mass destruction were the main Anglo-American justification for war but the failure to discover such arms has damaged the British government's credibility.

An indignant Campbell on Wednesday accused the BBC of lying and demanded an apology.

The BBC had accused him of inducing Blair to lie to parliament over the premise for war, Campbell said. But the corporation denied leveling such a weighty charge and is standing by its report and its anonymous source.

"Does the BBC still stand by the allegation that both we and the intelligence agencies knew the 45-minute claim to be wrong?" Campbell asked in his letter. "Why did BBC journalists not check the story with us before broadcast? Is this now normal BBC practice?" he went on.

Blair's spokesman denied the exchange was about "petty maneuvering." Earlier, at a press conference with Russian President Vladimir Putin, Blair did not offer the BBC a question, a highly rare occurrence.

British governments and opposition parties have often blamed the BBC for being biased against them.

06-25-2003, 12:02 PM	#1 (permalink)
manalone Once upon a time...	Us Media has not the spine it was born with. Discuss London independent article (Too long imo to reproduce here) Synopsis: The British Media is more willing to attack its leaders than the US Media. Interestingly, the root of this difference is seen as a remaining belief in the reliability of the office of the Presidency and Government in general. My thoughts Interesting. I have enormous criticisms of the Fourth Estate. I think that as a group they have never lived up to their ideals in an important way. They remain a fundamentally flawed and critically corrupt element of society. The US Media strike me as infinitely worse than any other free press. The cancerous partisanship that tears American society up is resident in it fetid splendour writing puff pieces about criminals and ignoring important facts while US Homeland "Security" scares everyone into place. America is a land of great opportunity and wonderment, but she has fallen in love with her corporations and left her people behind. Her real voice, the Media, is controlled by, what, 5 companies? All of whom are major Bush sponsors? end rambling Q1. a) read the article and (optionally the rant after it) and think. b) read any replies. c) The reasons stated are i) true ii) untrue iii) other. Discuss, giving examples. Please do not attempt to shout others down or be obscene. Engage brain then type. You have 3 weeks. You may begin. __________________ -- Man Alone ======= Abstainer: a weak person who yields to the temptation of denying himself a pleasure. Ambrose Bierce, The Devil's Dictionary.

06-25-2003, 12:26 PM	#2 (permalink)
Conclamo Ludus Modern Man Location: West Michigan	Media is continually failing. Part of the reason is that people's opinions find their way into anything. Left or Right and most people never see the bias that they agree with. There are no unbiased sources and there never will be. The only fair and balanced report you'll ever see is with your own two eyes and even that will be painted with whatever brush your experiences in life will tell you. I get my media from as many sources as I can and even then I expect there to be unanswered questions. British news media tends to lean to the left more. I say let biases be biases, you'll never be somewhere without them. Here's some links on British media biases (of course you have to ask if they come from biased sources ) BBC accused of anti-war stance Backlash against BBC for anti-US bias Remember its not biased if you agree with it! Here's one from everyone's favorite Fair & Balanced Fox News O'reilly sucks .com Interesting article, thanks for the post. __________________ Lord, have mercy on my wicked soul I wouldn't mistreat you baby, for my weight in gold. -Son House, Death Letter Blues

06-25-2003, 01:00 PM	#3 (permalink)
4thTimeLucky Psycho Location: 4th has left the building - goodbye folks	Ooh Ooh I was reading that article on the train this morning and thought it was ideal TFP fodder. God was clearly listening to my thoughts. I really think it hits home with a good point. Regardless of BBC's biases - and of course it has some, its an organisation of people afterall - the British press seem to be FAR more questioning and critical of the government/establishment. News presenters (e.g. Jeremy Paxman ) gain fame and a reputation for their ability to use sharp analytical thought and rigorous research to put MPs on the ropes. They have an Anne Robinson fierceness in their pursuit of the truth. American politicians get far too easy a time. George Bush wouldn't last five seconds in English politics. __________________ I've been 4thTimeLucky, you've been great. Goodnight and God bless! Last edited by 4thTimeLucky; 06-25-2003 at 01:03 PM..

06-25-2003, 01:24 PM	#4 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	I don't think this is an issue of biases at all. Of course there are biases. Journalists should strive for objectivity in their reporting and for the most part this is achieved. Where the journalism has gone off the rails is the increasing inability (unwillingness) to ask the difficult question. Why is this happening in the US? I don't have the article to back it up but I remember a journalist that asked a difficult question of Bush Sr. around the time of Gulf War I. Bush dodged the question and the reporter pressed the issue. Bush took umbrage that he was being "hounded" (my word). The result? The reporter was banned from future press conferences and summarily fired. Cut off from the information source (ie where you get your scoop) and fired. The reality is that since WWII the US press has pretty much towed the line as far as access to the white house is concerned. If you want to continue to be invited to their press briefings you don't ask difficult questions. If you can't attend those briefings you don't get the coverage needed to compete with the other journalist (or news organization if you want to take a broader look at this). Daniel Boorstin wrote a great book that speaks directly to this called The Image: A Guide to Pseudo-Events in America. Amazingly he wrote it in 1961. He felt that the US was losing touch with the real world and more importantly the very things that made America strong. He felt that real ideal were being replaced with contrivance... Interesting book. In the end, what I am getting at, in a rather round about way is that the US is more concerned with the surface of things than digging any deeper. Gloss and good image is everything. In depth is too cerebral and therefore bad. __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-25-2003, 10:58 PM	#8 (permalink)
tricks Crazy	It's all about the bottom line. Money and ratings. Tittilation, scandal and shock. It's entertainment ment to draw you in, not news to inform and enlighten. __________________ People Are Stupid. People can be made to believe any lie, either because they want it to be true or because they fear that it is.

06-25-2003, 01:43 PM	#5 (permalink)
Fade Banned	great point, and I think that this may have started around the time of the cold war crisis, when the media was kept out. They think that by skipping over the hard questions, more will be revealed, when is essence our politicians are beginning to get the idea that their power stretches farther than it really should.

06-25-2003, 02:38 PM	#6 (permalink)
Easytiger Insane Location: Tigerland	I was pretty impressed with the article. On the whole I find the British media to be invasive, cruel and extremely harsh, but at least they have the courage to ask the hard questions- and in times like these, hard questions need to be asked.

06-25-2003, 10:49 PM	#7 (permalink)
monkyebrain_80 Upright	you all have good points!

06-26-2003, 07:57 AM	#10 (permalink)
Charlatan Getting it. Super Moderator Location: Lion City	The Parlimentary system is certainly good for rigorous debate. Political leaders need to be taken to task. They need to answer the difficult questions. Too often they seem all to comfortable in the position of spin. Is there even a venue in the US where the President can be officially questioned (by other political leaders?) and where he is there to answer back? __________________ "My hands are on fire. Hands are on fire. Ain't got no more time for all you charlatans and liars." - Old Man Luedecke

06-26-2003, 12:18 PM	#11 (permalink)
Daval Junkie Location: The True North Strong and Free!	I agree. The Canadian and British political systems and media are certainly a lot harder on the leaders. They are held much more accountable in public. __________________ "It is impossible to obtain a conviction for sodomy from an English jury. Half of them don't believe that it can physically be done, and the other half are doing it." Winston Churchill