Fox News vs. mental stability

[reaper239]

The point at which you restrict my freedom to live in an area WITHOUT guns, so yes "always." When did I argue that Dorner is a good example of why everyone should carry? Dorner is a prime example of good guy gone bad, comprehension failed you there big time. The fact that America IS a great big shooting range is proven again and again with its propensity for mass shootings. Don't be blind to that fact, it isn't serving you well.

if you want to live in an area without guns, move to the country side and put up no gun signs. then defend it with guns you didn't argue that about dorner, i did, you said he was a good example and i agree, just to a different reason as to why he's a good example. maybe should have made that clearer. and, i'm sorry, russia? mexico? brazil? south africa? congo? these are places with "fewer" guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens(ie gun control)) and murder rates that make ours look like a nice stroll down whoville

[Osiris]

This is a very good question. But before I get down on this one, let me first focus on a small detail:

Media and news are two different things. And both have different tasks, and if not task, they both aim at different goals they try to achieve.
The News Services focus on most recent events or current questions which are or are to be discussed in the public - like for instance: guns, gun-ownership, gun-control. The News provide information about the facts on the one side, while each News Service connects the facts with a certain opinion or tendency of opinion. They do this with a couple of different types of articles and with different methods of filtering information - just reporting mere facts, commentary on matters, prolonged reports, interviews with specialists or involved people, polls, and prior to all of this: selection and prioritization of topics, nomally based on the decisions of the editor or a group of editors.

The Media has a very different approach. They don't necessarily stick with recent events on the one side. And also they are not limited to the tools of trade like the News are. The Media, actually, is much more broader then the News with the News being one part of what the Media provides as one of many different services. Other services include documentaries, talk shows with major topics, reviews of what other services of different types have discussed, movies and TV-shows; and doing all these things, that allows them to delve much deeper into any topic then what the News-Services can ever achieve. But there are a few similarities nevertheless: The Media itself governs what they want to show and how they want to get involved in certain topics, and the major decisions are again made by top-editors.

I should have clarified. When I'm saying media I'm referring to media in the broadest sense of the term: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely. I would say that news coverage falls within the confines of that definition. We could also include news papers, blogs, lectures, etc under that umbrella.

Now, why this distinction? Simple: While I mentioned earlier that the News are very much focussed on displaying criminal and violent assaults and thus on providing only a very small fraction of what is going on in the USA, the Media does not do this. The Media provides much more different content regarding the USA - about culture, society, politics, economy, sciences, 'the land' or 'the nation' in general allowing the audience to get a much broader and thus much better, though still to some degree filtered picture about the USA; but the USA is not reduced to a gun-crazy nation, like what we receive from the News. The focus here therefore is on The News-Services and not so much on Media in general.

Can you give us some examples of strictly "News Services" and examples of average media? I'm not entirely certain that I'm clear on how you're drawing the distinction.

But this judgement about the News-Services in Germany or the EU in relation to the events taking place in the USA is only half true; because the News also provide a lot of information about current events in the USA like what the President of the USA does, what political tensions on certain matters exist, what economy does, what other natural hazards take place, what crazy or impressive sport-events happen etc. The interesting thing, though, is that the emotional impact is much bigger and harder to digest, when the News give a report about one/ few madmen shooting in a frenzy and killing many people without any cause; and here, actually, it does not even matter if any News Service does so in an opinionated way. And such News shape the opinion about the USA much stronger then any other News - which is, actually, weird. Theory: And I think this happens because the foreign audience automatically compares their tradition and situation with what - according to the News - seems to be the case in the USA; and since such violent acts have a much more personal feel to them, I think, the members of the audience feel much more touched to it - like based on a certain 'social empathy' or something ... (I hope this makes some sense, what I write here ...)

Having said all this: This does not only apply to the situation between foreign News Services and events in the USA; this seems to be true for national News and the current events within the same nation.


Therefore the question would be: Is anything wrong with the way News-Services filter news and choose the method of displaying news?

All the best!
Liam

I think you're right about the sensationalist approach to violence in the news media (clarified). It seems the easiest way to garner social empathy for a cause. I would argue that it certainly is wrong for anyone reporting facts to ignore anything that doesn't fit the headline or by line. Again, its a sensationalist approach that is so hard to stand outside of, and I think a lot of that stems from ego, personal politics, etc.

I'll about to make a broad generalization about journalism, and journalists--personal opinion, not rooted in fact:

Journalists are people, and people want acceptance and recognition. If you're a journalist, then the biggest possible pat on the back from the world is the Pulitzer. That's the ticket, man. That's what we want, we crave, and we work for. We broke that story, we roped the attention of the entire world, and focused it on one tiny suburb of one tiny town, in one small corner of one large country. You do that with a powerful story. More often than not, we rearrange, editorialize, and manipulate the story to be just that, a story.

Oh, he ran a marathon, he did it for his wife, and his kids, and kids all over the world that are disabled, and he did it without any mother-fucking legs! Oh it's a heart warming story, and on and on. It reads different than "Disabled man ran in marathon with new prosthesis." I suppose one places more emphasis on the technological advance than other. One would appeal to a different reader than the other.

Journalists are just writers, and writers story-tellers. They're definitely the facilitators of the sensationalist approach. You can turn on the nightly news, and see a variation of the theme. The anchor that is giving you the facts, is given them in a predetermined order designed by the person writing the copy that is scrolling on the prompter above the lens. I'm not sure we could ever move away from that. I would certainly like to.

[Osiris]

if you want to live in an area without guns, move to the country side and put up no gun signs. then defend it with guns you didn't argue that about dorner, i did, you said he was a good example and i agree, just to a different reason as to why he's a good example. maybe should have made that clearer. and, i'm sorry, russia? mexico? brazil? south africa? congo? these are places with "fewer" guns (in the hands of law abiding citizens(ie gun control)) and murder rates that make ours look like a nice stroll down whoville

Egads, man. Seriously, go back and re-read the passage prior to the Dorner reference to get back on equal footing here. You're still arguing the hypothetical here. Have you no other basis for your opinion? Which is what this comes down to, an argument of opinion. You're running in circles here, man. If you're going to bring up Third World countries--or countries teetering on the precipice of--you also have to account for all of the factors that attribute to violent crimes. It isn't just gun control laws that cause violence, and it isn't gun control laws that prevent violence. I think we've already agreed on that, if you're still going to argue that then you won't get anywhere here.

[LiamKerrington]

[QUOTE=Osiris;56889]I should have clarified. When I'm saying media I'm referring to media in the broadest sense of the term: the means of communication, as radio and television, newspapers, and magazines, that reach or influence people widely. I would say that news coverage falls within the confines of that definition. We could also include news papers, blogs, lectures, etc under that umbrella. [Quote]

Yeah, I think that is what I meant - sensationalist/ -ism.

To get back to your first question: I would like to try another distinction then:

If we had only one media available, then I would have some trouble accepting the way information is presented to the audience/ people. The risk of having a one-sided approach to any topic is quite high. And I think the media would become something what we have in North Korea.
But for as long as there is a certain variety in media and you as the receiving end have the option to choose from different sources I am not so critical anymore about the media. But the problem here would be: What diversity is necessary to allow this idealistic situation. In a world in which many different media-sources are in the hands of very few bosses (Murdoch, Berlusconi, Bertelsmann) the variety might be nothing else but a delusion ...

Can you give us some examples of strictly "News Services" and examples of average media? I'm not entirely certain that I'm clear on how you're drawing the distinction.

Sure:
News Service:
- hourly news broadcasting (TV, radio, stream) which tries to put as much information from all kind of news-areas (politics, economy, hazards, sport-events, weather ...) as possible into the 5, 10, or maximum 15 minute-block entitled to the news-show
- websites providing news with texts, pictures, videos, voice-onlys - and all that updated in "a frenzy"
- daily news-papers which focus on 'the effect' and 'headlines' alone - German example: Bild; British example: Sun
- is one part of the media

Media:
- anything a certain TV channel or radio channel spews out; and naturally: the total of any kind of broadcasting
- with regard to the printing: weekly/ double-weekly/ monthly magazins and newspapers focussing much more on content, background, indepth-views, documentaries etc.
- daily-newspaper as soon as they try to put a lot more effort to fill the gap between the sensationalist newspapers from "News Services" and the newspapers mentioned right above this line
- especially professional blogs, news-services like the print-media mentioned in this section
- thus: media includes News Services, but it offers a lot more

edit
Think of two concentric circles. The smaller one - the News Service - falls within the area covered by the bigger one - the media; but there is enough room for other things as well, which makes the News Services only one of many facettes of the media.

I'll about to make a broad generalization about journalism, and journalists--personal opinion, not rooted in fact: ...
...
Journalists are just writers, and writers story-tellers. They're definitely the facilitators of the sensationalist approach.
...
I'm not sure we could ever move away from that. I would certainly like to.

Nothing to add. Am confirming everything what you wrote about journalism/ journalists - even the stuff I abbreviated with the dots.

All the best!
Liam

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

In my opinion, being a journalist is becoming more and more difficult. The media are supposed to come up with important news because otherwise the people who book commercial breaks / newspaper will reduce funding the specific medium. However, the number of daily news is finite. The competitive pressure increases the more different journalistic participants there are. And let's face it, the common media recipient demands short, pithy news presentations as the attention span has decreased significantly over the last two decades. Do not get me wrong, there are exceptions of course. But, if a news section is considered to be too boring / uninteresting, the consumer will presumably turn it off / change the channel / switch to something else. For example, take a look at the internet, it is rather called browsing than reading a website. You want to see something interesting. You want to have the hottest news fast, now, with an instant update push button please.

The media have recognized that because they have to do their homework or better: market analysis. Most them give their consumers what they think they like most: simplified (I mean it not in a condescending way), reduced to the essentials subjective statement news. Again, there are exception to that rule. Nevertheless, the same applies to internet blogs and podcasts.

[Osiris]

In my opinion, being a journalist is becoming more and more difficult. The media are supposed to come up with important news because otherwise the people who book commercial breaks / newspaper will reduce funding the specific medium. However, the number of daily news is finite. The competitive pressure increases the more different journalistic participants there are. And let's face it, the common media recipient demands short, pithy news presentations as the attention span has decreased significantly over the last two decades. Do not get me wrong, there are exceptions of course. But, if a news section is considered to be too boring / uninteresting, the consumer will presumably turn it off / change the channel / switch to something else. For example, take a look at the internet, it is rather called browsing than reading a website. You want to see something interesting. You want to have the hottest news fast, now, with an instant update push button please.

The media have recognized that because they have to do their homework or better: market analysis. Most them give their consumers what they think they like most: simplified (I mean it not in a condescending way), reduced to the essentials subjective statement news. Again, there are exception to that rule. Nevertheless, the same applies to internet blogs and podcasts.

You raise a really good point. Does money dictate what is, and what isn't newsworthy? If Coke doesn't want a story run, pull the sponsorship. Gotta have that Coke money!

But you would think that just the opposite would happen in a medium that is less bound by commercialism to be effective. Blogs. Granted you have to generate interest, but in the day of social media it isn't as hard to do. You have Twitter followers? You have a built in fan base for whatever you do. It feels like more, and more serious journalists would look to the internet to get out the stories that they feel matter.

Which raises another question about what stories actually matter?

[YetAnotherBloodyCheek]

Yes, I enjoy reading blogs a lot. But I think that one has to be cautious what to read. Blogs can be *sponsored* by a company, they can also be set up as part of a marketing / publicity campaign - there have been such nasty things in the past.

I can only answer your last question indirectly.

Bad news are actually "good" news. And those type of news which satisfy primal instincts - because they are mass compatible:

violence
murder
sex, porn
something that makes you feel superior to others (a fallen star for example: drug abuse, a car accident, a shaved head - hello to Lindsay and Britney!)
tax increases (why, damn it?)

[Solanine]

I disagree with the highlighted text. It is entirely relevant to the topic! In fact, that's exactly what we're discussing!

This is a bad journalism bashing thread not a gun control thread. That already exists.

[Osiris]

This is a bad journalism bashing thread not a gun control thread. That already exists.

True, but the inclusion of the photograph lead the thread into the direction it went, and a great deal of discussion about media influence have come from it. It's an issue that is an oft maligned topic in media. There's no reason we shouldn't discuss it, and explore how its perceptions are affected by media coverage.

[Solanine]

True, but the inclusion of the photograph lead the thread into the direction it went, and a great deal of discussion about media influence have come from it. It's an issue that is an oft maligned topic in media. There's no reason we shouldn't discuss it, and explore how its perceptions are affected by media coverage.

By all mean discuss it with regards to media coverage, the media have a tendency to jump to conclusions because they're simple and easy connections to make rather than because there is any truth to them.
For example "Violent video games make people more violent" is a favourite although the evidence is marginally weighted in the opposite direction.

How ever it turned into a gun control debate not a "Guns in the media" debate. That is the distinction I'm making. When threads get so long and go off on tangents it makes it supremely difficult for anybody new to join the debate.