It would seem my post only addresses the tip of this iceberg. I found an interesting article on ‘mainstream media manipulation’ at the global issues website.
http://www.globalissues.org/HumanRights/Media/Manipulation.asp
Tommy,
Sorry, I’d forgotten about this thread.
Sure, but the question remains as to why your standard should be applied, if you believe in democracy. The fascist doesn’t have this problem.
Yes, he does. But he’s still a moron. I loathe Paxman, particularly for the interview he did with Galloway (another moron) on the last election night where he kept asking GG whether he was happy to have ‘deposed one of the few black female MPs in Parliament’. If that constitutes ‘holding politicians to account’ (i.e. completely overlooking the democratic mandate to impose a liberal, politically correct value system even where it’s irrelevant) then you’re welcome to it. Paxman is like Chomsky - slightly smarter than those he’s criticising but still idiotic, simplistic, mediocre. Snow on Channel 4 is much better, mainly because he hasn’t got the same arrogance and small-dick psychology…
So we should scrap the focus on science and technology and cease teaching Shakespeare and the fucking Tudors (Henry VIII and all that) and teach people in school about politics and current affairs. The point is that media cannot hold itself to account, only people can do that. If they are thick, poorly informed and apathetic then they won’t do this. This is a problem of poor education.
I dunno, you’ve got to believe something…
The point is that if you want media organs to hold governments to account then the people reading media have to ask more of it.
On the contrary, that’s exactly what it does. Gold is worthless, inherently. It’s a crap metal - soft, heavy, difficult to find - it’s bloody useless. But because we developed an aesthetic fancy for it (via advertising, or it’s predecessors) it is one of the most valuable (i.e. valued) substances on earth.
Without having to buy any of them, perhaps?
Well, any favouring of one set of values over another is anti-democratic, anti-liberal, anti-individual. Now I don’t give a toss for any of those things so I don’t care about the potential hypocrisy involved but many others do. One cannot use selective media (i.e. censorship) to advance democracy…
That blog was mainly crap. It simply assumes a connection between the Labour Government and the BBC where there isn’t one. If there was then do you think the whole ‘sexing up’/David Kelly/Andrew Gilligan/Greg Dyke conflict would have happened? If the BBC were mere pawns of the government then it would have been another media organ that broke the story about the bullshit we were being told regarding WMDs in Iraq. People forget this, or overlook it. As such, they are as guilty (if not more so) as the media organs they accuse. If the critics are as moronic as the things that they are criticising then they’re wasting their breath.
Also, one link from that blog was to this Guardian Media article.
media.guardian.co.uk/broadcast/s … 33,00.html
This article points out a certain resistance to the BBC, not in the name of fair and productive media but in the name of the ‘Free Market’. The writer of the blog overlooks this completely, seeming to favour the dominance of mass corporations to the presumed dominance of the government/BBC. This is idiotic and proves that the blogger is simply maintaining a one-line story, regardless of what actually happens. Like I say, this makes them as guilty, if not more, as the media organs.
The point is that any choice of one piece of media over another is censorship, of a type. One cannot favour this and favour democracy without entailing massive contradictions.
- Make current affairs, politics and media criticism part of the national school syllabus
- set up national and international archives of media so that people can study it broadly
- demands higher standards of critics of media - I posted a lengthy deconstruction of a BBC story about the first female soldier to die in Iraq. I’ve never seen a mainstream writer commit to such a detailed analysis. Academic writers do it but never bother to try and actually get ordinary people to read it because they want to preserve their ivory tower.
- because he’s black and being black gives you credibility in certain senses
- because he’s a reasonably good-looking chap
- because the media culture has generated and maintained a reputation for him
That depends entirely on what one wants universities to do. Universities are where a lot of incredibly important (e.g. medical) research takes place, to put this at risk because people read in The Sun that ‘they are having to pay for someone else’s education’ is thoroughly stupid.
But sure, I have no sympathy for middle class students who don’t even study effectively whinging about having to pay for their own drinks. I think that anyone caught protesting against university fees should be made homeless for a fortnight so that they can understand what advantages they have.
I don’t think that anything like 50% of people should go to university. For one thing, there aren’t the graduate jobs out there (except in London) so all you’re doing is spending large amounts of money training people far beyond the jobs they’ll actually get, if they even get a job. I love those university adverts that say ‘85% of our graduates go on to new jobs or further study’. Which means, as far as I can see, that 15% of their graduates are unemployed.
I also think that it’s stupid for the government to pay £9,000 bursaries to people training to become English teachers when there aren’t any jobs for English NQTs while asking people who are training to be doctors (which we do need) have to pay. But of course, this would presume that the last 5 Education Ministers actually had a brain between them…
Hey siatd,
I’ve proposed what system I would like in place in my first post, but to justify ‘why’ it would be any better is a little trickier.
I think that to want a change in the system is to be open to the possibility that through change, the service could improve. Now, what do I mean when I say ‘improve’… I think the news could be more educational and therefore more democratically effective if it both broadened its scope of reporting and depth of analysis.
The average news hour broadcast here on Fox News for example I would say is comprised of the following:
45% War of Terrorism, the Middle East and national security.
20% sensationalist domestic bollocks that I could care less about (American Idol chat had been dominating this section up to last week)
5% teasing you on what’s coming up next after the commercials,
15% on those bloody commercial breaks…
10% weather
5% wizzing around the studio with flashy camera fly-bys to all corners of the studio and dramatic Hollywood music…
You’re left with a show that has no substance to it whatsoever. Look at their website to see what I mean.
I’ve been living in the US now for just over 7 months, and in that time in all the news I’ve seen on TV from various mainstream channels, the scope is significantly less broad in terms of what global issues are covered than in the UK. Besides the French riots and bird flu, I honestly haven’t seen much more news from Europe that is not related to either the war or a State visit of some sort.
Well we both agree I think that lack of quality education is to blame. I agree that teaching politics in schools should be encouraged. It seems as GCT said earlier that people tune into their preferred news station as a kind of comfort zone. When people know what to expect and when this news is driven by ideological rationale, they won’t learn anything remotely relevant to the forming of their own opinions. They only reinforce their existing mindset. They let the news think for them.
I don’t think that we should scrap teaching the arts for the sake of politics though. I think that subjects vary with importance in relation to age. Politics is a subject that needs the pupil to know a little about other such subjects before they start. Before I studied politics at A level, I really didn’t have any desire to learn it. The general negative connotations surrounding it (being boring, out of touch…something for adults to worry about…etc…) makes it an uphill struggle to get anyone interested in the way Countries are run.
I would say therefore that I think it should be encouraged in school from around the age of 16/17; before they reach the voting age.
I see what you are saying about the media not able to hold itself to account. Therefore I would say that it is the role of the schools to instill a solid foundation of critical thought in its students so that people can demand more of the news media. Teach the people how best to help themselves.
I think in this example we have to make the distinction between usefulness and value in the context of what we are trying to achieve. Gold certainly has uses outside of monetary exchange, for example for use in electronics due to its high conductivity, but this is besides the point. To be more precise, I would say that advertising companies aim to change the personal values that we ascribe to their products, but does that make them any more practical or useful to what they achieve? A spade is still a spade, no matter on much you want to advertise to the contrary.
Empty promises will only get you so far in the advertising of products and parties. I am of the belief that a good product will sell itself without the need to tell the world how rubbish the alternatives are. I think it’s fair to say that when news agencies have to resort to telling their viewers how ‘fair and balanced’ they are (like Fox news’ slogan) what faith if any does that instil in the consumer, if any.
That’s an interesting angle to come from. What if the values of the media are ‘democracy and liberalism’? Is favoring a more informed, less ideological system really anti-democratic? I guess it is up to the people as to what they want from the news. To learn and understand issues, or to be amused and remain in the dark. Is to remain in ignorance a right someone has to exercise when their vote is of equal importance as someone who has more of an idea of what is going on…
You say favoring one set of values is anti-liberal, but what if my set of values tolerates open debate on the value of itself in relation to other values. I said before that I’d want my system to encourage debate on a multitude of opinions and analytical debate from all sides, to best help me, the individual to come to a more informed and well-rounded opinion. Is that anti-liberal or anti-democratic? I would say that the current system if anything is not as democratic as it should be and that it could be made more democratic through a more pragmatic approach to reporting.
Yeah it is a crap blog. I was using it as an example that while the BBC is generally regarded as a pretty good news agency, it still comes under levels of criticism. You can’t please everyone but there’s always room for imporvement.
Here’s a better link concerning media manipulation. http://www.prwatch.org/
I’m not really proposing just one news outlet that shows news, but more a selection that all hold the same all-embracing principles. I want the media not just to have the slogan ‘fair and balanced’, but to live, perform up to it. Again, the question falls to what should be reported and not. News that most affects the country? The globe? News that has the most significant potential implications? Local stories? How do you slice it up to be most beneficial.
Yep, in the UK we do bloody general studies. I would think ‘Govt & Politics’ could be more integrated into that kind of subject.
Good idea, but people have to want to learn about such things to gain that broader outlook. How can that be encouraged? Perhaps more emphasis on school trips abroad to a certain degree. Promote learning about other cultures and ways of life to fight the prevailing ignorance that permeates society.
Yes, this highlights the problems that arise of criticizing the media, mainly the time frames we use. News is very much a here today gone tomorrow type of business. A story might be littered with bias and bollocks, but the fact is its out and being read by millions. The damage has already been done. Who is going to read the letter of complaint emailed a few days after the fact pointing out the inaccuracies while public perception on the issue has already been shifted. Its old news by then and the new stories are being digested en mass. Ideology mixed with myopia and sensationalism isn’t a pretty mix for educational purposes.
Exactly, he is well respected and also goes against the stereotypical US model reporter. He seems less fake, more trustworthy and down to earth.
I think it should really be both funded by the State and by the individual. The State, because as you say the services that universities provide extend further than just to the students they teach. Also getting back to the theme of the thread, investment in the future through education I think is one of the most important things the Government can support. Everyone pays for the benefit of everyone in the end. It is not only graduates who benefit from a more skilled society…
The individual should also have to contribute because of the direct benefits and opportunities that going to university provides. Paying something back recognizes these benefits and eases the pressure somewhat from the tax payer.
I think its good that the Government is encouraging people to learn, but by doing this through the higher education system I feel is the wrong way to emphasis the point. I was reading a story last year about some physics professors who decided to go into plumbing instead of teaching because the money was so much better. Such a university culture does seem to create a mismatch of abilities and jobs.
Regards, Tommy
Tommy,
Good to see that you’re keeping this thread running, it’s one of my favourite discussions…
Of course, it could be. But
- that’s not guaranteed in which case one wonders if there’s not a way of achieving the same aim via a stronger (i.e. more likely to work) method
- how does one make the media organs behave more effectively?
Well, Fox news is dreadful. It’s more what would be called in this country a ‘news magazine’ show than actual news. But sure, unless it’s about the US manufacturing anthrax and sending it to itself and blaming it on diabolical Muslims then Fox is generally uninterested. Now, some media critics would claim that Fox is conspiring with the US administration (I hesitate to use the word ‘government’) to increase the perceived the threat and the efficacy of this Cold War mk II tactic. Others, like myself, would point out that ultimately Murdoch is concerned with viewer ratings and selling newspapers and terrorism is an easy story to sell because it requires so little evidence to be effective. The possibility of an attack on the Ministry of Sound nightclub in London is enough. The evidence? They overheard two men discussing the possibility of doing so. Well, no shit. I’ve discussed how easy it would be to blow up various things, including the Houses of Parliament and Buckingham Palace. If that’s all you need to do to be charged under anti-terrorism laws then I and most of my friends are guilty as hell.
news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/uk/5016274.stm
You see, I wouldn’t go so far. What I’d say is that they are still thinking (albeit stupidly, but humans are stupid on the whole), just that they are thinking in very limited ways and so therefore seek out simplistic, comforting versions of events (news) that are readily provided. Have you read Orwell’s ‘Politics and the English Language’? It’s a vital essay for any 21st century media critic, though it has nothing to do with mass media per se.
Do we need any more kids who know how to express themselves and waste more materials on crap modern art that does nothing but bore the shit out of people like me? I don’t think so, yet students spend hours on arts every month.
Another issue is the method of teaching - so many teachers in the UK are liberal, Guardian reading men and women (mainly women, because the majority of teachers are - where are the cries for sexual equality?) and so they meander around political subjects, umming and ahhing and eventually making reference to something they either happened so long ago or so far away that the kids get nothing out of it. Because politics is presented as boring, it is perceived as boring. It’s something that happens somewhere other than in the lives of these children. So all teachers of politics must be subject to rigorous training and testing until they’ve proved that they are knowledgeable enough to be able to inspire these kids and get them interested.
Which involves needing a whole generation of critical politics/history/media teachers which don’t seem to exist, anywhere.
To the first issue - I don’t see why 18 is the qualification to vote. Well done, you’ve lived for 18 years. ‘You may be an ignorant cretin who has never read a party manifesto in his life but here, have the exact same right to vote as someone who devotes their life to studying politics. No, don’t worry, you probably won’t ever use it anyway, but we’ll spend thousands of pounds on bureaucracy just for you in case you change your mind, drag yourself out of your swamp, hose yourself down and join the ranks of those who give a shit.’
That depends entirely on whether one sticks a clock/radio in the handle of the spade and advertises it as a 3-in-1 device, or as predominantly a clock, or a radio, or a spade.
On the contrary, if you don’t at least tell people about your product (regardless of whether one makes it seem like if one buys this product life will be perfect whereas if one buys the rival product then one will die slowly) then they won’t buy it in large numbers.
Democracy and liberalism are ideologies. Incidentally, one can easily have one without the other, one simply need to decentralise power in the correct manner. Thus, favouring liberalism (whether we’re talking economic liberalism or social liberalism) is taking an ideological stance. That’s the point, there’s no ground to stand on which escapes the problems of ideological politics. I’d much rather we simply embrace the fact that liberal capitalism is ideological and get back to the mighty Hegelian struggle than wallow in the mire of ‘well, liberalism isn’t really an ideology, it’s more the end of history’. However, I also think that we can do better than the Hegelian struggle.
i.e. Freedom of speech? Why not just say ‘freedom of speech’? Because you know full well that it’s bullshit, an imposition, a mirage, a hypocritical philosophy and mythology. Well, I hope that you do.
I don’t see people as individuals so I don’t really know what you mean here. Either you are an individual, in which case other people’s opinions are no more important or right or wrong and therefore there’s no point listening to them, or you aren’t an individual but are part of a collective (or several different collectives), in which case I can see the point in you listening to others. In fact, one of the very ideas that has brought mass media and politics to it’s present situation is the false idea of the individual.
The BBC does a lot of good work but it’s TV news service is weak. I don’t ever watch BBC tv news and I wouldn’t really recommend it. I prefer to read my news than watch it, that way I can take it at the pace I choose, rather than one chosen arbitrarily by the producer. That way I can work out more easily the assumptions and omissions that have defined the story and how the particulars of the inevitable partiality are working.
…
I remember General Studies. Bag of bollocks, did no work and got a C. Waste of mine and everyone else’s time.
I think that just having archives in the first place would make people more curious. The notion that one could go and watch (or even access via one’s home PC) old newspapers, TV shows and the rest could actually be ‘sold’ to the public quite easily. Everyone is nostalgic to an extent.
I dunno, people aren’t as forgetful as you might think. They are getting more so, cultural amnesia is accelerating (the thesis for my next novel), but this is a movement that can be arrested.
Personally I’d rather overhaul the entire system and restore universities to their status as it was in Ancient Greece. It won’t happen. I have no problem with ‘mixed’ funding for uni education. Particularly when students are, on the whole, lazy and thick.
As I see it, they lower the acceptance levels for universities (and therefore the standards expected and the quality of graduates) to try to make up for the failures of school education, rather than to capitalise on it’s successes. I got into university in spite of secondary school, not because of it. 
I think that ecologists & scientists should control the media…
I think that ecologists should be shot
-Imp
let’s ask santa for all that this year
sientists are way too slow, lol… they need everything peer reviewed a gazillion times before they print anything 
(sorry for going off-topic)
Chuckle, regardless of the news source bias often appears. We all suffer from cultural bias, and this carries over into the news media. The only counter I have found for this is to read numerous news sources from around the world in hopes of finding a few kernels of fact. CBS, NBC, ABS, FOX, CNN, MSNBC, BBC, Al Jazeera, AMIN, The Guardian, Arab News, New York Times, Washington Times, YNet, Arutz Sheva, Al-Ahem, and all of the others have demonstrated bias in one form or another.
I tend to agree with Jerry. All humans have some form of bias often are not objective.
With regards,
aspacia
Just came across this, and Reuters claims to be unbiased:
ainstream Media Organization
Headlines
Reuters Employee Issues ‘Zionist Pig’ Death Threat
Ynet News
A Reuters employee has been suspended after sending a death threat to an American blogger. The message, sent from a Reuters internet account, read: “I look forward to the day when you pigs get your throats cut.” It was sent to Charles Johnson, owner of the Little Green Footballs (LGF) weblog, a popular site which often backs Israel and highlights jihadist terrorist activities. In the threat, the Reuters staff member, who has not been named, left his email address as “zionistpig” at hotmail.com. Reporting the message to his readers, Johnson wrote on his website: “This particular death threat is a bit different from the run of the mill hate mail we get around here, because an IP lookup on the sender reveals that he/she/it was using an account at none other than Reuters News.”
Speaking to Ynetnews, Johnson said: “I was surprised to receive a threat from a Reuters IP, but only because it was so careless of this person to use a traceable work account to do it.” He added: “I think it’s more than fair to say that Reuters has a big problem.”
Editor’s Note: But the “progressives” and the liberals continue to maintain that there is no bias in the media…
With regards,
aspacia 
hi siatd,
Well nothing much is ever really guaranteed in life. News is no exception. While it may not guarantee that people will become any wiser, I think that news should still provide the greatest potential and opportunity for people to learn. People have to be willing to listen and help themselves, but the media should be making it as easy as possible through greater exposure to more issues. I’m open to the possibility of ‘stronger method’ with the same aim aswell.
Perhaps a watchdog of some sort… but then you get into the question of who looks over the watchdog … Perhaps some sort of external body which could publish weekly reports on effectiveness of media organs, looking at percentages of coverage to determine how balanced it all is.
I agree. As I’ve previously stated, media organs are too often run for monetary gain and ratings. Sensationalism provides an easy competitive edge in the market. A good reputation provides another edge, but is much harder to maintain and more is always at stake. Terrorism fits the sensationalist bill nicely. As you say, it doesn’t take much to blow it out of proportion. The threat may be real, but is it really as serious as they would have you believe? Is it worth the airtime spent on it?
Without media outlets performing effectively or being held to account, or holding the Government to account, you’re effectively left with unchallenged political decisions and untold consequences.
I agree that people like simplistic versions of events. Simple problems that have simple solutions, but unfortunately reality isn’t this simple. I’ll have to check out Orwell’s Politics and the English language; thanks for the suggestion. 
Art may seem like a slacker subject, and most people I know who did it did so because either: - a)they were a little talented at it –
but mainly b) they couldn’t be arsed to learn something more challenging.
My experience with politics teachers is that they have been very interesting and engaging in the material they teach. We just need to encourage more teenagers/young adults to take that initial first step in getting interested in pursuing the study of politics. The curriculum feels it necessary for us to study maths, English, science history, art and geography as core subjects, but not politics or economics. Both I think lead on naturally from the study of these core subjects, which is why I think it should be encouraged around A-level.
Legal age I think is an interesting topic in its own right. 18 is considered the age of adulthood in the eyes of the law in the UK at least. People are deemed responsible to make and stand by their own decisions. Why 18? Who knows. The age limits for various activities shadow the changes in social norms dictated by the era. Ideally the age should be when people are actually able to take on the responsibility. Perhaps some form of IQ tests should be carried out before people are able to vote, to show some level of understanding in how the system they live under works. Disenfranchise the idiots of society; it might actually encourage them to learn something. 
I actually think that people have to go through various stages of learning to reach a level of ‘political consciousness’. I’ll probably go into this more in a separate topic sometime. Having a voting age assumes that the individual now knows something of the political world in which they live.
My point was not that they should not advertise at all, but that they should not do it under false promises. As you corrected earlier, political parties might draw up populist manifestos but they won’t necessarily follow them. Should that false sense of expectation be encouraged? Does that make a more democratic system? I don’t think so. If you can’t deliver then don’t promise that you can.
If it is a 3 in one device, then by all means use that as a selling and advertising point. Just don’t tell me it can do 4 things instead of 3.
I was thinking more in terms of intellectual liberalism rather than anything else. The freedom to think and analyze issues from all areas of the political spectrum. When I talk in terms of not favoring ideology, I should clarify that I mean static ideologies that only view problems and solutions from their fixed viewpoint. I subscribe to an ideology that doesn’t have a preconceived set of solutions to the problems that exist.
Any ideology can offer freedom of speech; it is what you do with that free speech that counts. Media could use their position of being able to contact the public to spew nothing but biased sensationalist rubbish, which doesn’t really help society. Or, it could act responsibly and provide a service to better hold the Government to account by reporting more accurately the actions, implications and consequences of those in power. I want a system that gives people the best opportunity/potential to become more informed on these issues.
I don’t see why the individual and society cannot mutually exist. People are individuals, and as such everyone interprets information differently from each other. Some will more accurately interpret the meaning of the information better than others. This makes some people’s opinions on an issue more valid than others.
However, this does not mean that the opinions of others should not be listened to. If they have a different opinion, you must find out where this difference of opinion stems from and work from there.
I’m indifferent to whether I watch or read, depending on how I feel. Watching definitely brings many more variables to how we interpret the news. Eg. .character of the newscaster/presentation of the program etc… Reading certainly provides a more flexible schedule with a broader and deeper analysis and the choice of what to read and when. I think it really depends on what frame of mind you’re in.
You could well be right about not capitalizing on the successes of secondary school. The problem is exacerbated when you introduce the grade inflation we’ve witnessed too. Are we then becoming a more conditioned and dumber society? 
Or have technological advances in the flow of information off-set the systemic failure of secondary schools to adequately teach politics to the masses? Time I think for an aspirin. 
Regards, Tommy
Killing ecology is like killing your own children.
Killing ecology is like killing your own children.
LOL Dan, you are picking-up my bad habit of double posting.
With regards,
aspacia
The BBC are in my good books today.
They’ve started a blog contributed by the editors of the BBC news to try and make themselves more accountable. From the BBC article explaining what it’s for…
I think making itself more transparent through a blog service is an excellent idea. I hope more news outlets pay attention and do something similar. =D>
Regards, Tommy
They have also been conducting web surveys.
Our media might consider doing the same, since their ratings are very low.
With regards,
aspacia
Does no one else find it frightening that the largest contributors to the Democratic Party are lawyers and members of the teachers union?
Source?
I am an instructor and belong to the union. Much of the problem is administrators in the k-12 system who want to pass students through the system and go after teachers who do not do this. Principals will have teacher’s person belongings removed, their desks, have their secretarys lose supply orders. You would not believe some of the shit that goes on.
With regards,
aspacia
I honestly don’t remember the source but I bet if you asked each person who’s voted Democrat or given money to DEMs you’ll find you answer. I have no problem with unions, teachers are way underpaid. Considering the amount of hours they spend out of school grading papers, making lesson plans etc, they deserve to be paid alot more.
And Ascpacia, I’d wan’t you teaching my kids any day
Thanks, but this is hilarious, they would be cursing me in their sleep as I am tough grader.
With regards, appreciation and respect,
aspacia