Jump to content


Photo

World Media vs Reality.


  • Please log in to reply
13 replies to this topic

#1 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:29 AM

Well to start, I'm not gonna reference any media sources, as that defeats the purpose IMO. I believe the world media has focused on world sensationalism. Paparazzi, famous people, candidates for office, the person next door. No one is out of harms way.

I understand the idea in the US that a candidate who can withstand such scrutiny might be worthy of the job of President. But at some point both sides of the arguement might notice, the world media is very biased.

Not just left or right, but on the micro-scale level that makes candidates 2nd grade view, of the world, relevant in world politics. Can I be held accountable for something I've said on this forum 2 years ago when I may have changed my view on the matter since than?

Am I allowed to grow up as well as others here?

I feel the US and world media has SO much access to info that maybe it's 24/7 coverage is forcing issues not otherwise enforced. Is there no rest period between time zones?

Let's say I am running for office and said something two years ago that I may have changed my opinion on. Am I liable for the fact that I changed my opinion? Call me a flip flopper on my opinion, but I'll trade a flip flopper who is someone who has the guts to change thier opinion based on facts presented to them, over someone who refuses to see the truth, as presented to them.

Am I wrong if I choose to listen to others, and after that, choose to change my opinion? Because if this is so, than I know for a fact that many poeple who thought I as was wrong, now understand I was correct in my assumptions. Only time will tell how humble some others might appear, considering my humbleness as well.

#2 Athena

Athena

    Embody the Truth

  • Undead
  • 6,946 posts
  •  Former Community Leader

Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:09 AM

Well to start, I'm not gonna reference any media sources, as that defeats the purpose IMO. I believe the world media has focused on world sensationalism. Paparazzi, famous people, candidates for office, the person next door. No one is out of harms way.

I agree with this. While I'm unsure what the rest of your post means, this part my sleepy head could understand :). I agree that media are quite biased.

#3 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 07 December 2007 - 01:01 PM

Quite. In the modern democracies of 100% mass media coverage, the media are no longer the so called "fourth power", they are the first one. They shape and destroy political candidates, whole parties even, by simply bashing one side of the fence with forced and outdated arguments which still go through, nevermind the sheer silliness of the argument itself.

Here's some food for thought: There was a politician once who got accused of rape by a prostitute. The media went completely apeshit and within a matter of days the guy was ruined. A rigorous investigation revealed that the accusation was completely unfounded, and the guy wasn't even near her that day. Did he regain his image? Heck no. It doesn't matter what the truth is when the mass media say it, their amazing psychological techniques influence the population like nothing else ever did.

We live in a world where we simply can't trust the mass media anymore, the mainstream serves only the interests of those who can pay for their services. Fortunately there are still a few independents left..

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#4 Ash

Ash

    Foxtrot Oscar.

  • Undead
  • 15,526 posts
  • Location:England
  • Projects:Robot Storm
  •  Keep calm and carry on.

Posted 07 December 2007 - 01:04 PM

This is hardly a groundbreaking truth...it's an argument any media or journalism student can level. There's no such thing as an unbiased newspaper or report...it's either biased in grounds of the newspaper, its editors, or the reporter. Hell, the information the reporter has might be biased and tho, even despite his own impartiality, the reporter may still be biased through misinformation.


It's part of why I read little or nothing of news reports. There's so much spin half the time I'm dizzy just reading the headline.

#5 Hostile

Hostile

    Benefitting Humanity Simply by Showing Up!

  • Veterans
  • 9,551 posts
  • Location:Washington DC
  •  T3A Founder
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Global Administrator
  • Donated
  • Association

Posted 07 December 2007 - 03:58 PM

So maybe the 1984 style of secret police we all feared will not come from the government, but from the media. This entity has individuals amongst it's ranks that also agree there is a huge ethics issues stemming from mass media.

Basically anyone can say anything about anyone and it's true till proven false, and than it's still rings with an aire of truth. Regardless of the validity of the statement.

So maybe we don't need a worldwide government reform, maybe we need a worldwide media reform. Free speach, I love it. But it doesn't appear to be free if someone has to pay the price for it with thier career or lives.

Take the recent mass killing in a mall where 8 people got killed and the mass murderer's name and face is plastered everywhere. Wouldn't it make sense that the media would supress the name of the murderer and his face in order to stop the threat of "suicidal, get famous quick" copycats.

Why isn't the media more mature enough to know that if you don't make someone famous by displaying thier pic and name that maybe it'll be less appealing to commit mass homicide followed by self suicide?

Maybe if we stop "making these people famous" by giving them the post-mortum spotlight they desire, maybe they won't be so inclined to commit mass homicides before blowing thier head off. Which was thier intial plan anyway.

That's just my opinion, I could be wrong...

#6 Solinx

Solinx

    .

  • Undead
  • 3,101 posts
  • Location:The Netherlands
  • Projects:Real Life
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Retired Leader / Manager

Posted 07 December 2007 - 04:30 PM

To name an example of that theory put to practice, here in the Netherlands there are rarely newsitems about people commiting suicide, whether they kill others first or not. Both for your stated reason of not making suicide a sure way of getting attention, and also not to bring other people on the wrong ideas.

At least there used to be rarely any when I was actively following newspapers. Nowadays I occasionally read the free newspapers in the train and otherwise get the important things to hear in conversations with friends and family, or from browsing the web.

Solinx
Posted Image

"An expert is a man who has made all the mistakes which can be made in a very narrow field." - Niels Bohr


#7 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:11 PM

i personally feel that the mass media is making themselves marginalized in the big power-picture. they act like the pitchfork and torch-wielding mob running after "monsters" based upon what they personally feel is a monster. i think there is less serious journalism these days than what there used to be, because they can get away with easy brainless cases which requires little but quoting some big corporation that sells stories to newspapers.

also considering that many, if not most, newspapers are owned by someone who likes to make a bit of money. the problem is that news and information should not sell for the sake of sales or popularity. it should be something that you would be interested to read, and it should give you new information about something you have not considered, it should revolt you but at the same time enlighten you to how the world works. it should NOT tell you what to mean, but since its hard to get people to read what you are writing without playing on their emotions, you rarely have a choice.


basically, i feel that what we are doing here right now is the next generation of information-gathering. we talk about stuff that interests us, and we create specific forums to discuss the topics that we especially like to be enlightened on. we don't get some journalists garbled opinion, but we look at what a journalist says and then discuss the different sides of the case, often coming up with a less contrast-filled opinion on it.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#8 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 07 December 2007 - 05:26 PM

I think people need to start taking consequences for what they say. If something a news paper says causes serious damage to a person's life, that paper should be able to be held partially responsible for it. Maybe if people are able to sue the media for lying about them, they'll stop lying.
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#9 Blodo

Blodo

    The one who disagrees

  • Project Team
  • 3,002 posts
  • Location:Eastern Europe
  • Projects:siteMeister, Mental Omega
  •  The wise guy

Posted 07 December 2007 - 06:30 PM

They are able to sue the media, thing is these lawsuits rarely go through due to the sheer amount of money the mainstream stations can throw at their lawyers. Either that or they simply settle for a silly low amount of money out of court and thats the end of it.

ARGUMENT FROM CREATION, a.k.a. ARGUMENT FROM PERSONAL INCREDULITY (I)
(1) If evolution is false, then creationism is true, and therefore God exists.
(2) Evolution can't be true, since I lack the mental capacity to understand it; moreover, to accept its truth would cause me to be uncomfortable.
(3) Therefore, God exists.


#10 Tom

Tom

    title available

  • Undead
  • 8,475 posts
  • Location:UK
  • Projects:Life
  •  Co-Founder of Revora

Posted 07 December 2007 - 09:32 PM

Solution: Throw away your television and use the internet. Its the next step imo. TV has become nothing that a load of corporate bullshit and mass advertising. Get rid of it and hopefully people will think more for themselves than be subdued by televisions soothing influences. TV is merely the modern opium for the masses nowadays. Sadly the media and private corporations can use it for their own means. I fail to see any independant stations on TV anymore, most have corporate backing.

#11 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:09 PM

But major ISPs are already pushing to gain more control over the content their users see. Just read about 'net neutrality'... How trustworthy is your ISP really?
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#12 duke_Qa

duke_Qa

    I've had this avatar since... 2003?

  • Network Staff
  • 3,837 posts
  • Location:Norway
  • Division:Revora
  • Job:Artist

Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:21 PM

true. as rich people start to learn the new technology, they will do their best to make a buck and control it. capitalism is at times nothing more than a dictatorship based on surplus and profit. if potential drops of profit is flowing out because of net neutrality, they will do their best to stop that.

luckily i don't believe that the net will easily be defeated that way. it would be a good scenario for a cyberwar though. the hordes of geeks vs the organizations of well-paid geeks.

"I give you private information on corporations for free and I'm a villain. Mark Zuckerberg gives your private information to corporations for money and he's 'Man of the Year.'" - Assange


#13 CodeCat

CodeCat

    Half fox, half cat, and all insanity!

  • Members
  • 3,768 posts
  •  Fighting for equality of all species

Posted 07 December 2007 - 10:34 PM

I don't think the existence of a corporate internet vs a free 'hacker' internet is an unrealistic view of the future. We've already seen Linux as a result of hackers discontent with corporate control, so it's not impossible that the same would happen to the internet. It would put a stop to the internet as we know it though, reducing it to a system reminiscent of the dial-in BBS systems of the early 1990s.
CodeCat

Posted Image
Posted Image

#14 Kusakia

Kusakia
  • Members
  • 5 posts

Posted 08 December 2007 - 06:38 AM

...people pick on opinions so much nowadays and we are all truely opiniated.
We feel we must go with the majority, or that becuase others are able to state their reasons for why we are wrong,
that means we are wrong, instead of listening to what they claim and understanding where they are comming from.

It is then we should decide if our opinion still stands or possibly it was wrong, in which case, It is not the end of the world, but simply a moment of better understanding, which is, in my opinion, the way we should be when making decisions.


It's a wonder what can occur in an IM O_o
-kick me, I know hostile :p-

And i've had the same Sig for 4 years~




0 user(s) are reading this topic

0 members, 0 guests, 0 anonymous users