They say that history is written by the victor.
This is never more true than in the media age.
2 minute soundbytes , populist reporting, corporate self censorship, editorial agendas and barefaced propoganda mean that the full truths are often hard to find.
Check out the following reports for a glaring example.
http://www.buzzflash.com/analysis/03/02/02_Blix.html
http://www.truthout.org/docs_02/020203B.blx.nothing.htm
This has to bring the reliability and morality of the main stream news industry into doubt.
Did anyone else notice this weeks input page?
6 letters printed.
4 of those letters were sent in by Richard, Rich, Richie Richest, and Richard....
...anyone spot the trend?
I'm genuinely shocked that in the modern age media bias surprises anyone. Theres no such thing as an independent press and information will always be filtered through an agenda.
Try getting a main stream Ulster Unionist opinion in the Guardian, or a pro-Republiocan article in the Daily Mail. Wont happen. Just get used to it and find a newspaper that reflects your own fondly cultivated prejudices, ah the Telegraph.
Well the Guardian has recently published an article by a kiddie-fiddler of the look don't touch variety... it was very much a case of give enough rope there.
And I've read at least two articles by ex-nazis who have reformed. And I've sure I've read stuff in there from followers of Johnny Adair.
But in any interviews with right wing nut jobs it's made clear that this is a 'bad thing'. Yeah all news has some sort of spin on it.
And I think the stuff I've seen re the weapons inspectors and wether their are weapons or not has shown both sides of the argument
When's Paxo gonna be let on Blair, I'm sure it's this week some time, hope I've not missed it.
No - read lots of papers - easier now than it used to be with news sources on the web.
Rabid anti-communist? - read the Morning Star or the Socialist Worker (as well as the Express).
Environmental campaigner? - read Fortune magazine.
Etc, etc, etc...
It is not just a case of 'know your enemy' but also a help in arriving at opinions that retain a certain degree of independence - and the wider-reading cannot help but make your arguments more credible.
Andrew B.
But, we've got to remember that all the mainstream media is 'owned' by somebody and is big business. That puts it in the position where it is most likely to serve the interests of the few (while claiming to be a voice of the people). This is a major problem in our democracy, unresolvable unless government intervention in media ownership and accessibility is vastly increased (not going to happen). How can a democracy function when only some people effectively have a voice. This voice is unrelated to their expertise, knowledge or wisdom - it solely depends on money (which can be acquired in a variety of ways).
Democracy should be more than a vote AFTER other people (better people) have had their debate. Democracy should allow each of us to take part in the debate. But with drastically different volumes of voice how can we?
Equality is a prerequisite of a functioning democracy - not a product thereof.
And (I'm sorry for 3 posts in a row), as Colin Powell makes the case for war, read this article:
http://www.guardian.co.uk/usa/story/0,12271,889419,00.html
Speaking as someone who works in local newspapers, the best place to make a difference is my job! Everyone ignores you because they think you're small fry but 90 per cent of all adults regularly read a local paper. I've always tried to be as impartial and balanced as I can be but people ALWAYS accuse me of bias. Why? Because they don't disagree with me, they disagree with the opinions I've given voice to and they want their say. One man's fairness is another man's bias. There's a lot less bias in newspapers than you'd think, it's just that we quote people who are biased themselves and we get the blame.
The local police have recently stopped telling us about crimes because they want to reduce "the fear of crime"! So by ignoring it, they hope it will go away. Now THAT is an infringement of your civil liberties, a public body trying to cover up what it doesn't like. It's not our fault that bad things happen but it is our duty to report them (Support your local reporter - start a spate of muggings!)
There will always be reporters and papers who will deliberately quote someone to make a point or put a view across. Personally, I don't have enough imagination or time to make things up - I just report what people say and do.
Follow the advice of the last guy - read lots of papers, then you know all sides of each story!
Anyway, rant over. Go about your business citizen ...
society is fuelled by materialism
materialism is a competitive substitute for what we no longer have and that's self worth, pride and community.
Community was what newspapers once created, this kept us informed and feeling a part of something no mind how small we felt
we had a voice...
nowadays we have so many different forms of media other than newspapers and everyone competes by providing a different angle n'er mind sometimes how different and provoking...
why do they compete? Because they are fuelled by money, politics, materialism, jealousy you name it it's there and sod anything or anyone else.
The best thing is 'to read all the newspapers..' and then make up your own mind, s'true...
>And I've sure I've read stuff in there from followers of Johnny Adair.
4 of the worst hours of my life were spent in a small room with Johnny Adair, the bastard smoked all my fags.
La Placa Rifa,
W. R. Logan.
I don't read any papers and I'm happier for it; there's too much crap among the newsworthy bits, distorting the world sense of what is and is not important. Same goes for TV. Two minutes on Teletext first thing in the morning does for me.
- JC
Link: THE JUDGE DREDD STREET SIM
**4 of the worst hours of my life were spent in a small room with Johnny Adair**
4 hours isn't a very long jail sentence.
Why?
Longmanshort made a good point.
Newspapers may not be biased themselves, but by reporting the comments of those who are biased they appear to be.
John Pilger (An award winning investigative Journalist) has strong opinions on this subject (http://pilger.carlton.com/media/guardian). His basic case is than when journalists simply quote others without attempting to analyse the reality of the statements and whatever agenda the interviwee may have or they produce propoganda.
Hmm... A gangster/paramilitary with a knack for inflaming ethnic violence and exploiting shady government connections. He's like our very own Arkan, isn't he?
Link: http://news.bbc.co.uk/1/hi/world/europe/611826.stm
Paxo Vs Blair tonite 9pm BBC2
Media Bias?
British Intelligence Document turns out to be hack job copied from an article on a website and some yanks graduate thesis. Not only that the info is 12 years out of date, detailing Iraq during their invasion of kuwait.
Any news of this in the Sun? (To my shame I had a look at my workmates copy). Nope.
Instead they spin Blairs whipping by Paxman to make it sound like Tony put a tree huggin jeremy in his place. Oh the humanity!
Is the sun a rag. Oh yes. But its readership is valued by the government, both tony and Mrs T made big efforts to snuggle up with editorial staff in the run ups to elections.
Jeez.
A comment from a local paper journalist.
You'll find far less bias in your local newspaper, which is part of the reason they're sometimes seen as a little dull in comparison to many "sensational" (ie blatantly lying) nationals.
However, there is no such thing as a journalist or news medium without bias.
As with everyone else, reporters all have built-in prejudices.
Everyone is of a certain colour, class background, age, etc.
The challenge is to work past that and minimise prejudice in what you do.
It's called objectivity and I do manage it every day.
Elsewhere, subjectivity has become an essential element of the product, ie left-wing views for one readership, the opposite for others.
A good example for local papers is the use of the word "local." We are openly biased towards local people, their opinions and economic needs, because they are our readership. (And yes, it does feel like living in Royston Vasey sometimes.)
Approach it with an open mind, as has been suggested here already, and it's not quite so offensive.
- Trout