Simon_Jester wrote:[Out of curiosity, in your opinion what keeps the media relatively more functional in democracies outside the US, where it is still by and large owned by rich people?
In addition to what Bakustra said, I'll add that we don't have such a dominant (in the US not by viewership, but by influence) 24-hour news media. The major sources for news are still newspapers, magazines, radio, and regular news broadcasts once a day of about 15 minutes or so. We don't have the commentary style daily broadcasts or talk radio either.
This does not mean that there isn't sensationalism, but there is a lot less.
I would also add that there is a lot higher expectation of journalistic integrity from journalists themselves. A Fox News-like propaganda channel would be quite unthinkable here.
Ironically, it seems in democracies with a right wing slant, demogogy is more common in the news media?
STGOD: Byzantine Empire Your spirit, diseased as it is, refuses to allow you to give up, no matter what threats you face... and whatever wreckage you leave behind you.
Kreia
Media is like any other industry and caters to the wants and needs of audiences/customers. If audiences want celebrity shit, then the media will focus on that, like our news channels that are just jam packed of loser Filipino celebrities nobody gives a fuck about. If audiences want ring wing ideologically correct lies, then the media will focus on that, like Fox? The media becomes politicized and inaccurate because the people themselves have become politicized and inaccurate? Comparing media should also include comparing the people who watch the media, and the sociocultural whatevers inherent to those different people.
"DO YOU WORSHIP HOMOSEXUALS?" - Curtis Saxton (source) shroom is a lovely boy and i wont hear a bad word against him - LUSY-CHAN! Shit! Man, I didn't think of that! It took Shroom to properly interpret the screams of dying people - PeZook Shroom, I read out the stuff you write about us. You are an endless supply of morale down here. :p - an OWS street medic Pink Sugar Heart Attack!
Shroom Man 777 wrote:Media is like any other industry and caters to the wants and needs of audiences/customers. If audiences want celebrity shit, then the media will focus on that, like our news channels that are just jam packed of loser Filipino celebrities nobody gives a fuck about. If audiences want ring wing ideologically correct lies, then the media will focus on that, like Fox? The media becomes politicized and inaccurate because the people themselves have become politicized and inaccurate? Comparing media should also include comparing the people who watch the media, and the sociocultural whatevers inherent to those different people.
PBS Newshour goes in-depth and avoids sensationalism, and draws as many viewers as O'Reilly. So I think that any such differences are minimal. This also only applies if you consider the news as identical to commercial industries. I consider it more like a public utility. I don't support banning private media, but I do support a viable, prominent public media.
Invited by the new age, the elegant Sailor Neptune!
I mean, how often am I to enter a game of riddles with the author, where they challenge me with some strange and confusing and distracting device, and I'm supposed to unravel it and go "I SEE WHAT YOU DID THERE" and take great personal satisfaction and pride in our mutual cleverness?
D.Turtle wrote:
I would also add that there is a lot higher expectation of journalistic integrity from journalists themselves. A Fox News-like propaganda channel would be quite unthinkable here.
Indeed and when Murdoch tried it, he was pretty much told by the entire political establishment to go screw himself.
Another thing is that in a multi-party system, there is no real incentive to become a demagoge unless you want to be relegated to a national joke. It does not really benefit any party to demonize another party because chances are you are going to need them to form a coalition in the near future.
Whoever says "education does not matter" can try ignorance
------------
A decision must be made in the life of every nation at the very moment when the grasp of the enemy is at its throat. Then, it seems that the only way to survive is to use the means of the enemy, to rest survival upon what is expedient, to look the other way. Well, the answer to that is 'survival as what'? A country isn't a rock. It's not an extension of one's self. It's what it stands for. It's what it stands for when standing for something is the most difficult! - Chief Judge Haywood
------------ My LPs
Thanas wrote: It does not really benefit any party to demonize another party because chances are you are going to need them to form a coalition in the near future.
That's an interesting point for us in the UK, as for the first time in living memory* we now have a proper coalition government. The Tories and (especially) the Lib Dems are having to backtrack significantly on a lot of what their parties stated in the campaign. If (and it's a big if) we actually get some form of PR installed during this parliament, the parties will have to think long and hard about how they campaign in future to avoid a repeat.
*The Liberals propped up the Callaghan government for a brief period, but it was hardly what could be called a proper coalition.
"
- PeZook
