Comments on: What price the news?

By: Anubis

Anubis — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 15:33:12 +0000

Peter H, if you haven’t already you might want to acquire “Wilsons War”by Jim Powell. A very fast and illuminating read.

By: Peter H

Peter H — Fri, 30 Oct 2009 09:06:50 +0000

You are very perceptive Anubis, I don’t watch documentary tv or filsm any more. I do read a wide variety of newspapers on-line, but even more I read history books. My favorite subject of interest being the events that led to WW1… which is still going on after all these years (at least it could be seen that way, although it’s not the orthodox interpretation). I might cut down on the newspapers as a lot of them are crap.

By: phoenix1

phoenix1 — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 18:43:36 +0000

The top ten things the rest of the world calls the corporate owned media:

10. overpaid clowns
9. actors with no talent
8. 21st century politbureau
7. hackzilla
6. prostitutes; on a moral par with human traffickers
5. anything for a buck, Chuck
4. vicious exploiters of human misery
3. a slickly produced diversion away from corporate crime and malfeasence, as in “they went thataway…”
2. self dealing amoral scum

1. lying publicity whor*s

By: Rusty

Rusty — Thu, 29 Oct 2009 04:40:59 +0000

Journalism is now driven by commercial reason rather than anything else. This lead journalists to look for spicy news that can hold the viewers for the maximum time possible. I remember news on “Run-away bride” flashing on major US news channels for couple of days in 2007 where major events happening across the world were simply ignored or covered just for formality sake. This shows the extend to which the quality of news has de-graded these days. It would be intentioal ignorance to accept 100% of what media says as they are surely not driven by facts but something else.

By: Anubis

Anubis — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 18:29:27 +0000

Peter H, clearly you do not watch documentary television or film. Support staff and journalists working for the Times, Tribune, Washington post and news rooms for the major television networks in the U.S. have made that very claim. Some have resigned or lost their assignments while many more carry on in silent drudgery facing the prospect of economic harm if they were to speak up.

By: Benny Acosta

Benny Acosta — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 17:58:06 +0000

You make a good point on the idea of knowing your customer. I wonder though if we aren’t at a point in history when we should perhaps be looking beyond the point of knowing the customer to knowing the human as a whole.

We are divided only because we choose to do for ourselves before, and to a great extent at the expense, of our fellows. And I don’t mean that in the over simplified way it normally gets taken (sickly sweet bleeding heart Mr Rogers kind of thing). But if that’s your bag then more power to you.

Representing the views of the average citizen with vitality means (to my mind anyway), connecting to human issues on dimensions beyond financial or corporate impact. We don’t discuss the impact of “news” in human terms as much as we do in terms of statistics and policies (unless of course we first commercialize and sensationalize it).

Statistics and policies are only of interest to those who produce them. So when I say “real news” that’s what I’m talking about. And I know that’s a hell of a tall order. But what else is there to aspire to if you’re a journalist?

By: Casper

Casper — Wed, 28 Oct 2009 11:20:24 +0000

Modern people are more informed than in the past though, and I agree with you, things are obscured, but maybe less than in the past. As far as mind control goes, I suppose we are talking about local and foreign propaganda, let’s not forget movies, advertising and the power of religions. What I do find fascinating is how subtle Russia Today and the above Mid Eastern channel present themselves, in stead of raw marketing like some countries. It is always interesting to ‘climb’ into another mindset, and also learn to think in the opponent’s way. Know your customer.

By: Benny Acosta

Benny Acosta — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 16:43:28 +0000

On a global level you may be correct. You can see the opposing views of the various controlling parties in different parts of the world. But the views of the average citizens in those parts seem to me to be just as obscured as they are here. But I could certainly be wrong.

By: Casper

Casper — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 09:26:01 +0000

I disagree on a global level. The nature of reporting has been influenced by the quantitative and qualitative growth of information in the past 20 years or so. It is easy to do media bashing, but looking at contents of other countries’ media, there has to be a balanced transparency or it is continuously rebalanced by opposing views. Do yourself a favour and have a look at the ‘China’ link below. For what it is worth, they even have blogging and some of the US columnists write or get translated there. As a point of debate, I really enjoy Aljazeera.

By: Benny Acosta

Benny Acosta — Tue, 27 Oct 2009 05:32:06 +0000

So basically Anon and Peter, the two of you are more relativists?

Well, maybe not Peter. He did say the “perception” of truth is relative.

Perception is not fact. The facts that are known about something can be refined so that we know even more about those facts. They don’t fall apart under scrutiny. Truth is broad and deep, but NEVER subjective. What IS, IS. That’s truth. Facts are just smaller parts of WHAT IS.

Truth by its nature is incorruptible. The truth of existence is that you ARE. In terms of facts, what it means to BE is vast.

The truth about a situation becomes apparent when the desires and actions (facts), concerning the participants in a situation are known. Reconciling these facts we understand the true nature (truth) of the events examined.

Perceptions are the only thing we have to guide us towards any kind of understanding about anything. Perceptions can be altered with ease. And when perceptions become distorted “facts” become distorted. Thus the need for objectivity when searching for truth in the world.

Truth in the inner world is purely subjective. You feel what you feel because you want to feel it, or because you don’t know how to feel any other way. And when feeling meets perception you get either illusion. Or you get fact. And the way to tell the difference is to examine them carefully and see what stands up to scrutiny and what doesn’t.

When feeling gets mixed in (as it always does) you can have an infinite number of possible translations of the “facts”. This is why only people of conscience make the best reporters or the best anythings. Because those people are honest within themselves. Honesty = “What IS, IS”. Thus when a person is internally in agreement with truth, they find it.

When an organization charged with the task of finding out the facts, is owned by another organization with it’s own interests being its top priority, then where is the difficulty in seeing problem? If the owning organization is a self interested, profit seeking entity then clearly as the controlling organization it can stifle information which is damaging to it.

My argument was that in these times one gets the “perception” that this influence is being exerted with zeal in the present day.