It looks like you're using an Ad Blocker.

Please white-list or disable in your ad-blocking tool.

Thank you.


Some features of ATS will be disabled while you continue to use an ad-blocker.


Modern Media: Major Problems

page: 1

log in


posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 06:45 PM
Having spent hours investigating an Associated Press article, phoning Washington and New York, reading 5 other articles on the same topic, and talking to people directly involved, I have still not reached a conclusion. Now, if I had just read the AP article, I would probably not be thinking so hard about our media, particularly in North America. I think it is clear to most that the media, namely, TV, is the #1 medium through which the Government can spew its propaganda. I cut my TV cable 7 years ago, but in order to keep with the times, I read the New York Times and Washington Post. However, I can't help but aknowledge the amount of Policitcal leverage that exists against major Media producers, thus causing them to print certain things.

Do they all get the same stern emails?: "Print Michael Jackson for the next week straight." Having recently jumped on the RSS Feed trend, I now read headlines from about 10 different publications daily. This has been both good and bad. Good because it slapped me with the realization that Newspaper articles can and are incredibly biased. Take the story that I investigated as mentioned above. The AP article mentioned witnesses and had quotes from local Police (Murder) The other articles did not. In fact, both were biased from one particular stand-point. Now the bad: what to believe? It is great to cross reference, for example, the Washington Post and Democracy Now via RSS, but it leaves me in one of Hitlers 3 categories I don't want to be in: "I don't believe anything." Well, not always, but the media for me is a web of confusion. Without investigating and connecting the dots, News stories' true meaning, like in literature, will not be revealed. For example, perhaps Michael Jackson crap is meant purely for a distraction of the public. The social security in America the same.

My solution is to print a weekly paper that writes articles about articles: major news stories.

Interested to get your input. Do you trust the media? Does one group "own" the American media? What is the solution?

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 08:56 PM
dude....over-analyzing. the reason micheal jackson is being covered so much is because it's sensational, and the american people have shown time and again they love sensationalism. through the years the media has figured this out and in an effort to boost ratings, subscriptions, listeners, readers, etc. most media outlets have picked up on the most sensational stories of the time. the only people telling them to do so is us the people by our acceptance of this crap. also, you have to understand a whole lot of media operates by simply "picking up" the stories of others. that's just one other reason so many outlets cover the same story. one major newspaper will cover it and the others will jump on the bandwagon. as a sidenote, maybe you should have balanced your reading of the liberal new york times with a subscription to the conservative wallstreet journal. you know, play up both sides, expose yourself to both agenda's.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:03 PM
No, I don't think it's over analyzing at all.
I am already sick to deatah of Michael Jackson. But, the media blasts it at us and doesn't have to cover real stories.
Whatever possible purpose could there be to show the police cars taking the suspect in the Georgia Judge shooting, ala OJ Simpsons police chase?

I think the news is biased insofar as they don't think we have enough intellect to figure things out for ourselves...protecting us for our own good...hiding real issues from us. I think it goes beyond political parties.
I think we see commercials for so many dugs so we will ask our doctors for these drugs, many of which have not been tested enough.

posted on Mar, 12 2005 @ 09:26 PM
Tv needs more car chases. Can't get enough of those. They can keep the rest of their crap though. I really don't even watch TV anymore, especially TV news. I hate mainstream media. The only reason I have cable is for highspeed internet. As far as the newspapers, utter garbage, agenda in print for less than a buck. No thanks.

[edit on 12-3-2005 by Veltro]

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 02:49 AM

I agree. Some of my colleagues don't read the Newspaper and haven't for some time. Particularly out here in Europe. In the countries I have been, Newspapers are far less popular than back in North America: I have never seen a paper boy. I totally agree about sensationalism, but that per sey could equate to political distractions. I wonder how interlocked the major Newspapers are with the Government.

posted on Mar, 13 2005 @ 03:26 AM
I'd say the two are alot more intertwined than most people would like to believe. They seem to be quite good at influencing people from what I've seen.

I think modern newspapers are just as much of a propoganda tool as Signal was in Germany in the 30's and 40's. But that they have gotten alot more creative in hiding it and glossing it over.

I'm sure the percentage of people that get their news from only one or two sources, such as people who only read the New York Times or only watch Fox news dwarfs the number who read many different opinions on web sites such as ATS and others. And I'm sure a great percentage of those people never question what they are fed.

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 04:34 AM
Exactly. That is why a respectable publication with humor and intelligence could appeal to Generation X and Y, since they are by nature critical and cynical. Well, so I learnt in Marketing. There is a Target Market for such a publication, and I mean in print, not just on the web. First it can go National and then International. A paper with articles written about articles.

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 06:55 AM
getting the written word out has become a monster of takes and opinions.the facts are so blurred now you cant tell if you hearing or seeing reality anymore.its funny we have come so far in communications but we have ended up right back where we started.shouting in the street.for shouting in the street we all go hey i can hear you clearly.there is a reason we watch so many reality shows right now because reality is blurred.the written word is craved and needs it back before they can get our attentions.or we exist in mindless chatter.......

posted on Mar, 14 2005 @ 07:15 AM

Very well said.

posted on Mar, 30 2005 @ 09:21 PM
I reject the idea the the media are simply chasing ratings because they believe we all fall for sensationalism. If you live in a major media market as I do, you'll notice that all of the local outlets will cover the identical stories from night to night, or at the very least, the "Top Story" will all be the same. If there are 3 newscasts for example, and one is lagging, it would stand to reason that they might try a different approach to attract new viewers. This is even more logical in markets where there might be up to 6 local newscasts.

When you look a little closer at what these stations are choosing to cover and lead with, it seems crystal clear to me that they are specifically choosing an agenda of fear and strife. Because of ratings? No, because fear scratches the buying itch in the american public.

You would think that higher rating means more money for the media, but the reality is that a higher viewership, which is less motivated to consume is worth less to the advertisers than the reverse scenario, which we currently employ.

I personally feel the the mass media is the most destructive force in America Today.

new topics

top topics


log in