davieG Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 I'm pretty sure it's always been like that what has made it worse is we've become a nation of headline readers with an appetite for instant info. The more instant it is the more likely it is to be less than accurate and certainly incomplete.
Steven Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 We don't want to offend the Saudis and they are not generally regarded as part of the West. It's easy to get on your high horse about these things but when that country has the power to wreck the economies of the Western world at a stroke you have to be careful what you say. I think the recent fall in oil prices shows how toothless the Saudis really are.
Webbo Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 I think the recent fall in oil prices shows how toothless the Saudis really are. With all your conspiracy theories you don't see the obvious? The Saudis are sabotaging the Russian economy.
Steven Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 With all your conspiracy theories you don't see the obvious? The Saudis are sabotaging the Russian economy. I think it would be the Iranians and it smacks of cutting off your nose to spite your face.
MooseBreath Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Or the US paid the Saudis to sabotage the Russian economy.
Steven Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 Or the US paid the Saudis to sabotage the Russian economy. The Americans would be happy to get that monkey off their back.
Rincewind Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 I'm pretty sure it's always been like that what has made it worse is we've become a nation of headline readers with an appetite for instant info. The more instant it is the more likely it is to be less than accurate and certainly incomplete. There is also the argument that the longer the story is in the hands of the media cheifs the more time they have to edit it. With instant news this cannot be done.
Guest Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 There is also the argument that the longer the story is in the hands of the media cheifs the more time they have to edit it. With instant news this cannot be done. You realise that they all basically compete to try and get news out first right? Some wait for corroboration but some don't. Either way it's a race to fill air time and be first to it.
Rincewind Posted 9 January 2015 Posted 9 January 2015 You realise that they all basically compete to try and get news out first right? Some wait for corroboration but some don't. Either way it's a race to fill air time and be first to it. Yes I do. I was looking at it from a different perspective.
leicsmac Posted 10 January 2015 Posted 10 January 2015 The media reflect all different strains of opinion, the idea that they are forcing us to think the same is absolutely stupid as anyone can see due to the wide range of opinions on here. People read these ridiculous conspiracy theories on the internet and because they suit their prejudices they believe them and then when they post their half baked theories on the web and they don't receive the due reverence they deserve the poster decides that we all must have been brainwashed because we don't agree with him. It's extremely condescending and egotistical. I'd rather the tinfoil hat wearers be able to spout crap and call everyone else brainwashed than information and news about world events being controlled by just a few individuals or groups. Perhaps that's a false dichotomy, though. I agree that mainstream media reports news from a lot of different political angles, but it's almost always a view espoused by one or more of the major parties. Also, as I said before, I'm not sure you can take FT Gen Chat as a microism of the UK population as the people on here, for the most part, tend to be more interested in and savvy about politics than the average person.
Guest Posted 10 January 2015 Posted 10 January 2015 Yes I do. I was looking at it from a different perspective. A perspective in which editors sit on a breaking story in order to manipulate the facts?
Rincewind Posted 10 January 2015 Posted 10 January 2015 They have a time spot or a certain amount of space on a page to fill. Leaving some out can alter the structure to present a different meaning. You cannot alter what an interviewee says fully but leaving a part of it out can make a difference especially if the opposition viewpoint is given more space.
fleckneymike Posted 10 January 2015 Posted 10 January 2015 We seek out that which we believe. The media gives us what we want.
Guest Posted 10 January 2015 Posted 10 January 2015 They have a time spot or a certain amount of space on a page to fill. Leaving some out can alter the structure to present a different meaning. You cannot alter what an interviewee says fully but leaving a part of it out can make a difference especially if the opposition viewpoint is given more space. I don't think you get what I'm saying at all Ken in relation to your original point. Let's leave it
ozleicester Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 The disappointing thing about the Mainstream media (MSM) is that due to the whole left/right thing, no one can be trusted. If i quote from Murdoch, i am seen as right wing, from the Guardian and im left. And that is with good reason, Murdoch products come from a right bias and the Guardian from a left. You dont become an editor on a leading Murdoch publication, without knowing exactly what your employers expectations are, Murdoch will always say "i never tell my editors what to print"... but of course he doesnt need to, they have spent years learning what is acceptable and expected and they certainly have not been promoted to these positions.. UNLESS they have demonstrated the mentality that he desires. I can assure you, if an editor steps away from "the line" he/she is very quickly made aware that they may have made an error and they know their job and future depends on meeting their employers expectations. I dont know about the Guardian... but i imagine its pretty much the same. Im not saying that wrong, if i own the business, i have the right to run it how i see fit, but governments need to to stop giving more reach and more power to media. The problem comes when, as mentioned above, people take the majority of their information from a limited number of sources. With more reach being gained by fewer owners it becomes difficult for some of the public to hear/see an alternative. Then mash opinion into "news" and then you have control in the hands of people who are working for profit and shareholders, not for society. According to Ofcom, News Corp's UK newspapers under the News International parent company reach 14.5 million people per week - almost double the number reached by the Daily Mail & General Trust group. BSkyB's Sky TV and radio services reach another 45 million.
Webbo Posted 12 January 2015 Posted 12 January 2015 That 14,5 million per week is equal to 2 million a day and includes both the Times and the Sun, a wide range of views there. Those same people will also watch BBC and ITN news and see things on the internet. They might even read another paper as well.
Steven Posted 15 January 2015 Posted 15 January 2015 Funded by Saudi Arabians and fostered by Saudi laws. 15 of the 9/11 hijackers were Saudi Arabian. Yet how often is this emphasised in the media in general, not at all. Why? The power of the media to ignore what is going on so as to "not offend" powerful oil and arms interests in the West. In other words there is blood on the hands of those that knowingly and willing participate in such behaviour. One newspaper has made a liar of me. Good. http://www.independent.co.uk/news/world/middle-east/saudi-arabias-history-of-hypocrisy-we-choose-to-ignore-9978493.html “If you know the enemy and know yourself, you need not fear the result of a hundred battles. If you know yourself but not the enemy, for every victory gained you will also suffer a defeat. If you know neither the enemy nor yourself, you will succumb in every battle.”― Sun Tzu, The Art of War
Recommended Posts
Archived
This topic is now archived and is closed to further replies.