erynthered Posted March 26, 2007 Share Posted March 26, 2007 Please tell me no. Not the NYT. They're always right. Ther're never wrong. Alas, poor Jason, you're not alone. For the people who constently use this trash paper as THEIR fact paper, you may want to hold off for a while. Too funny. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261400,00.html http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007...the-other-foot/ http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017143.php Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yep! Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 Yep! Come by here much? Over your head, eh. Enjoy your NYTimes. Typical. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
RI Bills Fan Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 All news sources are flawed by the personal beliefs of the people who work for them. The NYT doesn't fact check as well as they should if the story fits their reporter's preconcieved notions. Fox cherry picks stories and facts to fit the agenda they push. Net result? Same old Sh*t! From both sides! Yet each time you find a nugget you can wave in the air, you act like it's something new. **Yawn** Over-React Much? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I find it amusing that Fox News is reporting on this. They are guilty of the same thing. A decent understanding of the media industry would allow one to realize that this is more the result of the maximizing of profits and decline of media quality than anything else. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Army and Defense Department investigators said officers looking into Tillman's death passed along misleading and inaccurate information and delayed reporting their belief that Tillman was killed by fellow Rangers. The investigators recommended that the Army take action against the officers, but suggested no specific punishments and left it to the Army to decide what to do. Possible steps could include demotions, dishonorable discharges, jail or letters of reprimand. http://news.yahoo.com/s/ap/20070327/ap_on_...n_friendly_fire Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I find it amusing that Fox News is reporting on this. They are guilty of the same thing. A decent understanding of the media industry would allow one to realize that this is more the result of the maximizing of profits and decline of media quality than anything else. Interesting. Can you please tell us about how long this process of the "decline" in media quality has been going on because of that industry's slavery to profit? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Interesting. Can you please tell us about how long this process of the "decline" in media quality has been going on because of that industry's slavery to profit? I can't tell if you are being sarcsatic or not. It started with 60 minutes, which showed that the news can subsist as entertainment rather than as a public service, and the consolidation of media companies along with the abolition of constructed practices all has pushed the news industry to a focus on profits rather than on the news. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Pine Barrens Mafia Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I can't tell if you are being sarcsatic or not. It started with 60 minutes, which showed that the news can subsist as entertainment rather than as a public service, and the consolidation of media companies along with the abolition of constructed practices all has pushed the news industry to a focus on profits rather than on the news. 60 minutes is FAR from what's wrong in the news media. They actually TRY to tell stories in depth. The utterly vapid talking heads angling to fill time on the 24-hour news stations are a whole other ball of wax, though. They're a large part of the media's decline. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Johnny Coli Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Please tell me no. Not the NYT. They're always right. Ther're never wrong. Alas, poor Jason, you're not alone. For the people who constently use this trash paper as THEIR fact paper, you may want to hold off for a while. Too funny. http://www.foxnews.com/story/0,2933,261400,00.html http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007...the-other-foot/ http://powerlineblog.com/archives/017143.php Did you even read the second and third links you've posted? This is hardly the scandal you are proclaiming it to be. One of the six women that was interviewed lied to the interviewer, and it was the NYT who posted the correction mea culpa. So, interviewer is lied to (and taking away this woman's account doesn't change the gist of the article at all, btw), Times runs piece, Times finds out about discrepancy, Times runs correction, erynthered clears some room on a shelf in his den for the Pulitzer in investigative reporting he most surely deserves. I'll take my chances with the NYT. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 27, 2007 Author Share Posted March 27, 2007 All news sources are flawed by the personal beliefs of the people who work for them. The NYT doesn't fact check as well as they should if the story fits their reporter's preconcieved notions. Fox cherry picks stories and facts to fit the agenda they push. Net result? Same old Sh*t! From both sides! Now you get it. Took you a while though. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I can't tell if you are being sarcsatic or not. It started with 60 minutes, which showed that the news can subsist as entertainment rather than as a public service, and the consolidation of media companies along with the abolition of constructed practices all has pushed the news industry to a focus on profits rather than on the news. I was asking a serious question and am pretty disappointed in the answer. Media has always been about profit. The Hearst newspaper chain was pretty consolidated, don't you think? And a good argument can be made that the internet has serioulsy de-centralized the media. Are you seriously arguing that media wasn't profit driven before 60 Minutes came along? Or that entertainment value wasn't a factor in determining what got on the air? Ever hear of the Lindburg kidnapping? How many "Crimes of the Century" were there in the last century? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 I was asking a serious question and am pretty disappointed in the answer. Media has always been about profit. The Hearst newspaper chain was pretty consolidated, don't you think? And a good argument can be made that the internet has serioulsy de-centralized the media. Are you seriously arguing that media wasn't profit driven before 60 Minutes came along? Or that entertainment value wasn't a factor in determining what got on the air? Ever hear of the Lindburg kidnapping? How many "Crimes of the Century" were there in the last century? So, what's your point? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 So, what's your point? That the media has always been about profit and sensationalism. Blue Fire was arguing that 60 Minutes somehow changed the media industry, I think that's silly Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
GG Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 That the media has always been about profit and sensationalism. Blue Fire was arguing that 60 Minutes somehow changed the media industry, I think that's silly Cool, so you agree that news always used sensationalism to drive its business model, while hiding behind the veneer of serving a public good. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
molson_golden2002 Posted March 27, 2007 Share Posted March 27, 2007 Cool, so you agree that news always used sensationalism to drive its business model, while hiding behind the veneer of serving a public good. Some news outlets are better than others and do serve a very important public good. You have to take the good with the bad. The news media is an extremely important part of our society. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Let me explain a bit more what I was talking about. It used to be considered that the best way to make money in the industry was to provide the best news service. There were many media companies all competing to have the best reporting, fact checking, and news selection. Institutions and ethical codes were built to make sure that the news had a substantive quality. Stories were fact checked, corroborated over and over, and the slogan of "All the news thats fit to print" was true. When 60 minutes came along, the news magazine format represented a more entertainment-oriented view that most news companies thought would fail. It had more sensationalized news stories than what was around at the time. For the newspaper industry, it was USA Today who really represented this viewpoint. The success of the more sensationalized, colorful, divided newspaper showed that it wasn't necessarily substance that sold news. Thus, the news media began to change, and consolidation sped this process way up. The media conglomerates ignored the walls between the accountants and editors. They looked at the success of 60 minutes, the USA Today, and other similar outlets and realized that the best way to make profit is not to spend a bunch of money having the most substantive news, but to spend less money and have more entertaining news. The news media has evolved to be focused on soft news with little corroboration. The least expensive way to report the news (less facts, more sensationalism and entertainment) also proved to provide the biggest audience. As large conglomerates bought other outlets, they were transformed into these types of news outlets to keep the shareholders and owners happy. This has influenced every corner of the media world. Some outlets have done a better job at not being as blatant about it, and tend to have higher quality products (The NYT, WSJ, etc). However, the quality of the Times is nowhere near what it used to be. I think its also interesting to note that I do not believe there is anyway Watergate would happen in today's media. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 Let me explain a bit more what I was talking about. It used to be considered that the best way to make money in the industry was to provide the best news service. There were many media companies all competing to have the best reporting, fact checking, and news selection. Institutions and ethical codes were built to make sure that the news had a substantive quality. Stories were fact checked, corroborated over and over, and the slogan of "All the news thats fit to print" was true. When 60 minutes came along, the news magazine format represented a more entertainment-oriented view that most news companies thought would fail. It had more sensationalized news stories than what was around at the time. For the newspaper industry, it was USA Today who really represented this viewpoint. The success of the more sensationalized, colorful, divided newspaper showed that it wasn't necessarily substance that sold news. Thus, the news media began to change, and consolidation sped this process way up. The media conglomerates ignored the walls between the accountants and editors. They looked at the success of 60 minutes, the USA Today, and other similar outlets and realized that the best way to make profit is not to spend a bunch of money having the most substantive news, but to spend less money and have more entertaining news. The news media has evolved to be focused on soft news with little corroboration. The least expensive way to report the news (less facts, more sensationalism and entertainment) also proved to provide the biggest audience. As large conglomerates bought other outlets, they were transformed into these types of news outlets to keep the shareholders and owners happy. This has influenced every corner of the media world. Some outlets have done a better job at not being as blatant about it, and tend to have higher quality products (The NYT, WSJ, etc). However, the quality of the Times is nowhere near what it used to be. I think its also interesting to note that I do not believe there is anyway Watergate would happen in today's media. If only more people looked at the media with the rational eye that you have. Too many people think or believe the media is end all in the truth, and would die, defending what they've read. Its like reading polls about what the American people think of whats going on in Iraq. How do they know whats really happening there? It could be worse, or it could be better than the media portrays it to be. Point being, the media sways public opinion easier than it is for me to type this out. If enough media outlets are saying the same thing, the, "it must be true" mentality, is ignorant, stupid and dangerous. Question for you Blue, why would you say: "I think its also interesting to note that I do not believe there is anyway Watergate would happen in today's media." Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Chilly Posted March 28, 2007 Share Posted March 28, 2007 Question for you Blue, why would you say: "I think its also interesting to note that I do not believe there is anyway Watergate would happen in today's media." The manpower, dollars, and time spent on a story that the editors felt wasn't going to develop into anything was enormous. The initial break and research required most likely wouldn't be done today. Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
erynthered Posted March 28, 2007 Author Share Posted March 28, 2007 A good example of the media swaying public opinion, was the Dubai Ports deal. What do you think would have happened had the media got all up in arms about all the attached pork in the Iraqi war funding bill? Did I mention I hate the media? Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts