The majority of people in the world are bright enough to realize that mainstream media outlets such as Fox News, CNN, etc. have no objection
disregarding objective journalism. (Ba-ZING!) Must of us know of the biases applied to these companies by their corporate owners well, and still most
of us know that the slow death of objective journalism began in the 80's.
But just how "dead" can it get?
While I can't speak for the world, I can speak for Americans when I say we have a much greater deal of trust when it comes to more business oriented
media outlets, such as "The Economist" or "The Forbes."
My question is.. Why?
The bias planted by these other news sources are just as illegitimate as the next, especially when it comes to citation. For a long time now, people
have been reading articles from sites like this and simply taking their word - and I don't blame them... After all, the written word, especially in
the form of a small article, was America's most trusted media outlet for many, many years.
In order to make my point, I will be going over one single example article - and pointing out the example article's flaws. If you want to find your
own examples, please do so and link it to this thread - let's highlight corporate stupidity, hypocrisy, and misinformation together!
In the spirit of ATS, and my favorite subject on ATS, we'll do an article on Aliens.
Specifically - History Channel's "Ancient Aliens."
Before you get up in arms, I would like to establish that this article is not about the History Channel's "Ancient Aliens," it's simply about how the
Forbes lies and cries just for ratings.
I understand that the show on history channel isn't the accepted mainstream archeological history - but that doesn't mean we shouldn't take it's
information and look at it objectively. Standing in front of a pile of archeological remains and chanting, "Men did this. Men did this. Men did
this." Does not only interfere with our ability to look at information objectively, it's plain childish. It's acting like Bill O'Reilly in slightly
more subtle manner (No one is -directly- being told to shut up)
So here we go... The example:
Archaeologist Watches the History Channel and Questions the Part About the Aliens
Open the article, read the few paragraphs, read between the author's intricate Stanley Kubrick-esque lines.. And maybe, just maaaaybe we'll find... A
promo for The Deadliest Warrior
(which is apparently more legitimate and educational, since it utilizes special flesh-like-gels and made up
numbers) and Project Runway
. (Which is apparently in a repeatable format that all our educational programming should be following)
Most of it is a rant on how it's all about ratings, and the author is even so open-minded that he goes on to make a strong judgement about all of his
readers which, let's face it, is right whether we admit it or not (Yes, that is incredible sarcasm) when he states:
Much as we might pine for more historical documentaries on the History Channel, the fact of the matter is that most historical documentaries are
boring: Narrator narrates over photos, paintings and or video. Cut to talking head #1. Cut to talking head #2. Back to narrating over pictures. If the
show has the budget, they might do some re-enactments of a battle scene. There – that’s your standard historical documentary. And I’ll bet when
the History Channel was running more of those documentaries, you weren’t watching it then, either – were you?
But that's fine, because he understands the layman. He knows our innate drive to educate ourselves, though incredibly weak, can be supplemented by
cool CGI graphics and Reenactments which are in all likelihood, fairly inaccurate. No, he doesn't have to wait for you to answer the question of
whether or not you actually watch those documentaries with the talking science-man-head.. BORING!!! He knows you'd just be lying to him in order to
boost your own ego, anyways.
It doesn’t have to be that way – since I got my Netflix streaming subscription, I’ve watched a lot of documentaries that are both fascinating
and entertaining. I think there’s a market for better educational programming. But I can imagine network executives during a recession being leery
about experimental documentary programming. TV is a tough business, and it makes more sense to go with reality shows and paranormal crap because
that’s what sells.
(Because Sitcoms like "Scrubs" are where the real knowledge is gained.)
So where do we find our real information..? How do we know what programs were started in order to further our knowledge of the Universe around us,
and which programs are all about ratings? Don't worry, the author has figured out the solution! We simply wait, and stop watching things he doesn't
like. Eventually, the broadcasting companies will take the hint.
When will that change? When a few documentary series that tell true facts and get people to watch come out. There are a few out there – Mythbusters,
of course, is the best show about scientific principles out there.
(Mythbusters formed my philosophical outlook on god, and explained to me why the gravity that I'm so accustomed to affects our area of the universe
differently than other areas of the Universe. What, you did see those parts? Well you have to buy the DVD to hear the bit about theoretical quantum
physics. Yes, this is also sarcasm. The Cosmos
? Who's Carl Sagan? )
Alright, alright. I've done enough taring apart his article. While the author may be voicing his opinion a little too much for a legitimate news
article, surely his source calls for it. Surely there are some shocking statistics - maybe some graphics or photographs with applied filters, or a
red circle pointing out a major flaw. Certainly there was a call for all of this scrutinty, all of this assured denounciation of all the Ph.D.s (such
as archeologists) that the show regularly interviews. After all, certainly they couldn't have ALL gone to school with the intention of furthering a
hoax. Perhaps these people DO genuinely believe we aren't the only spherical object floating through the billions and billions of others that
..None of those matters though, as the Forbes always does the research itself. The Forbes always makes sure it's sources are legitimate. The Forbes
always contacts the leading professional in h-- Wait, what is this.. A BLOG?
Forbe's Article SOLE
Yes. A BLOG.
And if you'll kindly scroll to the bottom, you'll find that the Blog's author did not include his name, or for that matter, his credentials. Is he
even an archeologist? Probably not, as you'll quickly figure out if you look for the author. The blog writer wasn't even the original
archeologist... Yet this false citation warranted a whole article on the Forbes.
Quote from the blog:
A vimana (Sanskrit विमान) is something found in ancient Hindu literature, with a variety of meanings. Its etymology (it can be analysed
vi-māna) means ‘measuring out’ or ‘traversing’
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: quote
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason given)
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: Title
edit on 14-4-2012 by thegagefather because: (no reason