What is with the "Mainstream Media"?

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Watser?

And did when Israel was viciously attacking Lebanon (and not just Hezbollah) last summer. And is doing again on Iran and again on Lebanon. There will be more wars like these in the near future, there is no doubt about that in my mind and the media will be and already are cheerleading it again, even to the point of preparing us for nuclear strikes on Iran.

The media are owned by corporations, and many corporations profit from war. Also, as I've said, while news operations, within the newsroom, are nominally independent, each one comes with a baseline culture that cannot be seriously questioned (if one wants to keep one's job, that is.) There is usually the baseline assumption that our system and way of life is not just good, but beyond reporach; of course the U.S. government may make mistakes, but otherwise we are God's gift to the world. Once you've accepted that baseline assumption (as you will have to, if you want to work and not be out on the street), you've got all sorts of freedoms, in the mainstream news media environment.

[BDS]

My son got an IB here in Oregon (in public schools), as did my nephew (who grew up in England, went to non-state school and is just graduating from Cambridge).

[Clutch Munny]

I wrote a chapter on the media and critical thinking. Basically folks here have made the same points, but more elegantly. Two key points of emphasis: the corporations are in it for the money; and the media workers themselves are (i) in it for the money and/or (ii) people like everyone else -- frequently lazy, half-assed, and typically inclined to follow the crowd.

The rest is largely just drawing out the emergent effects that arise society-wide as results of this.

[davidm]

One bright spot is the proliferation of new media on the Internet, challenging the mainstream. I'm thinking in particular of the new Onion News Network, and also of Onion Radio. Listen to the story below, for instance:

Bush Appoints "Total Fucking Mess" Czar to Oversee America's Total Fucking Messes.

[D. Scarlatti]

Thank god for that. This thread was getting awfully depressing.

[erimir]

Originally Posted by livius drusus

I learned a lot in high school. Of course, it was neither public nor in the US. The IB is where it's at, as far as I'm concerned. If you can find a school that offers the IB diploma, it doesn't matter where it is or how its funded: your kids will get a stellar education.

I don't really know that much about IB, but I do know that a friend of mine (who came to NC School of Science and Math with me, but went back to our old school) said that he was annoyed because he was not in the IB program, and was taking much more advanced math than they were (I believe he was taking something higher than regular calculus) but they got equal weighting on their GPAs for their math.

[livius drusus]

The IB has several math programs. The one I took (Math IB) has Calculus in the first year (my sophomore year). Had I wanted to pursue it, a Higher Level progam was available for more in depth study after that. I opted for free periods instead.

Perhaps your friend's school only offered Math Studies. It only touches on Calculus.

[godfry n. glad]

I'm totally in agreement with davidm, although I consider myself reasonably lucky when it came to my public education. It was family encouragement to read on my own and utilize the public library system which eventually resulted in my being 'tracked' into what was then known as EE (Educationally Enriched) programs, where teachers were given a great deal more latitude in the offerings they made. From then on, I got a decent education...albeit one which could have spent more time honing critical thinking skills.

[davidm]

For yet another case study in the hopelessness of the mainstream media, check out the execrable Maureen Dowd's lastest column,, which starts with an in-depth discussion of Barak Obama's "beefcake side." It just amazes me that this woman, as well as most of the other Times columnists, are paid to write this crap. You could pretty much pick someone off the street at random, and he or she would produce something better than this.

[The Lone Ranger]

Originally Posted by godfry n. glad

I'm totally in agreement with davidm, although I consider myself reasonably lucky when it came to my public education. It was family encouragement to read on my own and utilize the public library system which eventually resulted in my being 'tracked' into what was then known as EE (Educationally Enriched) programs, where teachers were given a great deal more latitude in the offerings they made. From then on, I got a decent education...albeit one which could have spent more time honing critical thinking skills.

I was fortunate in that I was tracked into the "Gifted and Talented" program. There were only a few of us, and we had a wonderfully enthusiastic and bright teacher who encouraged us to read and think for ourselves.

Had it not been for him, I would probably have hated Junior High and High School. Even so, I was mostly self-educated. The problem with that is that while I read voraciously, I didn't know enough to know what I should have been reading. Following my interests, I read mostly science books. Had I the chance to do it over, I really wish I'd been introduced to Critical Thinking at a young age. I also wish I'd done a better job of educating myself in the fields of literature, history, and so forth. *Sigh* So many books, so little time!



As for the media, Edward R. Murrow really was a prophet.

Inspired by this thread, I rented Good Night and Good Luck on Saturday. If you've never seen it, go to the local video store now!

Cheers,

Michael

[Clutch Munny]

As you know, david, "execrable" is about the most flattering term I'd use for Maureen Dowd. The astonishing thing is not just that they're paid to write this crap; it's that they get rich writing this crap.

[davidm]

Originally Posted by Clutch Munny

As you know, david, "execrable" is about the most flattering term I'd use for Maureen Dowd. The astonishing thing is not just that they're paid to write this crap; it's that they get rich writing this crap.

Speaking of dear Maureen, not too long ago she devoted an entire column to the size of Barak Obama's ears, alleging that his big ears were a sensitive subject for him, and one that presumably imperiled his presidential aspirations.

We are well and truly sunk, I think. To plumb the depths of our sunkenness, one need only recall that Maureen Dowd won the Pulitzer Prize.

[Clutch Munny]

Originally Posted by davidm

Speaking of dear Maureen, not too long ago she devoted an entire column to the size of Barak Obama's ears, alleging that his big ears were a sensitive subject for him, and one that presumably imperiled his presidential aspirations.

We are well and truly sunk, I think. To plumb the depths of our sunkenness, one need only recall that Maureen Dowd won the Pulitzer Prize.

I recall!

[Watser?]

Mainstream cartoons on the other hand do still get it right:

[BDS]

Originally Posted by Dr. X in the "Jesus" thread

I did not state that Junior was Anti-Semitic; I stated that the texts were. there is a difference. However, the Junior portrayed in Jn denies salvation to Jews, considers them εκ κατω--"from below"--Mt is not much better, et cetera.

Given his penchant for *cute* nicknames ("Junior"), is it possible that our own Dr. X IS Maureen Dowd?

[erimir]

Doesn't that make him just as likely to be George Dubya?

[BDS]

Originally Posted by erimir

Doesn't that make him just as likely to be George Dubya?

Is G.W. a "freethinker"?

(I suppose he does "think what he likes".)

[Clutch Munny]

In a sense descriptive of many who self-apply that term, yes.

And he does carefully filter his information intake, to avoid the dissonance caused by having his errors pointed out.

So the parallel's fairly close.

[Johnny Pneumatic]

This thread is depressing. I've gotten my news online for as long as I've cared to know the news, so guess I haven't seen the decay. Have caught a few min. of Fox "News" since hearing about how bad it was, just to satisfy morbid curiosity.

I'm not convinced that society as a whole is getting much, much worse though. The majority have always been poorly educated, horrible critical thinkers and interested in what we deem shallow pursuits (gossip and other social shit has been with us for thousands of years). The media's just pandering to the lowest common denominator since they know that's what earns them the most money.

[BDS]

My own idiosyncratic opinion is that accuracy and truthfulness in News reporting are overrated. When James Thurber worked for an American paper in Southern France, he shamelessly invented “society news”.

Originally Posted by Thurber

Lieutenant General and Mrs. Pendleton Gray Winslow have arrived at their villa, Heart’s Desire, on Cap d’Antibes; bringing with them their prize Burmese monkey, Thibault.

or….

“A man who does not pray is not a praying man,” President Coolidge today told the annual convention of the Protestant Churches of America.

[fragment]

Which would be fine for newspapers which don't sell their product on a reputation for truthfulness and accuracy. Those that do have an ethical obligation to live up to that expectation.

[BDS]

Originally Posted by fragment

Which would be fine for newspapers which don't sell their product on a reputation for truthfulness and accuracy. Those that do have an ethical obligation to live up to that expectation.

Do the newspapers have an “ethical obligation to live up to (the) expectation… for truthfulness and accuracy” expressed by posters in this thread? In the posts I’ve read here, there is no such “expectation”. Does that mean newspapers have no ethical obligation?

(Personally, I like the comics, the advice columns, the bridge column, and the movie reviews.)

[The Lone Ranger]

Most newspapers, in my experience, want you to believe that they're truthful and accurate in their reporting. Quite a few advertise this as an important reason to read them, in fact. As such, I most-certainly do think they have an ethical obligation to live up to their claims.


Now, if they want to admit that they're not being truthful, that's fine, but I'd bet that any newspaper which makes that admission is going to lose readers.

Or maybe not. Just a few years ago, FOX News argued in court that it was not required to be truthful in its "news" stories, and that they were legally entitled to air stories they knew to be false. And they won.

*Sigh*


Personally, I'd like to see National Public Radio given a much larger budget, and I'd like to see it written into law that politicians couldn't use the threat of cutting their funding to influence their programming. (According to Schorr and others, that sort of thing actually happens fairly frequently.)

In an ideal world, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting would have all the money it needs to maintain an investigative news branch, and it would be forbidden to take "donations" from any corporations whatsoever.

I suppose it'd be necessary to hire an independent firm to ensure that the money was spent properly. The one stipulation I'd put on NPR is that they would be subject to severe penalties if they were ever caught knowingly airing false or misleading information.


I'm not saying I know how to implement this, by the way. I just think it'd be nice to have a well-funded agency dedicated to (insofar as possible) aggressive, unbiased investigation and reporting -- one that isn't beholden to politicians and corporations. Of course, there's exactly zero chance of our government agreeing to fund such a thing.

Cheers,

Michael

[BDS]

We'd all like to get "truthful and accurate" informaton -- but it's not always possible, nor is it (at times) even possible to know that "truthful and accurate" means. As Philosophers of Science have pointed out, even our scientific endeavors are influenced by our point of view, and by the political milieu which influences that point of view.

Some (at least) of the "ethical obligations" of corporations are to their share holders (in our capitalist economy). So (in a sense) newspapers may ALSO be ethically obligated to sell papers, and sell advertising.

The idea that publicly funded media would be less likely to obfuscate the truth seems unlikely. They'd often be driven by political agendas (in fact, NPR always seems to have a liberal agenda, which is one reason conservatives get so angry about having to fund it. It would be impossible for NPR to have a conservative POV, because that would involve abolishing itself.).

The truth is inevitably filtered through a point of view that involves economic considerations, political considerations, and social considerations. We humans are social creatures, and often believe whatever it is that wins us the respect and admiration of our peers. "Reason" and "rationalization" are, after all, practically synonyms.

[The Lone Ranger]

No one, to my knowledge, ever suggested that it's possible to get completely "truthful and accurate" information from any source. Still, it'd be nice if there were more of an effort in that direction from various media "news" sources.


Every media outlet is going to be beholden to whomever holds the purse strings. That's one of the reasons NPR was founded, to try to reduce the influence of corporations on what gets reported and how it's reported. Unfortunately, the Corporation for Public Broadcasting is very much influenced by the corporations that fund it (PBS isn't frequently referred to as the "Petroleum Broadcasting System" for nothing, after all), and by politicians who want to influence its content.

I think that in an ideal world (no one ever said it was going to happen), the CPB would be guaranteed adequate funding and freedom from political oversight -- subject only to the provisos that they'd have to account for their spending and they'd be subject penalties for knowingly reporting falsehoods. Is this a perfect solution? Of course not. I suspect it'd be a better one than we have presently, though.


But since when does NPR have a "liberal agenda"? It speaks volumes of just how far to the right the political debate in this country has moved that anyone can say with a straight face that the relentlessly centrist NPR is a liberal-leaning organization. Certainly, compared to such venues as FOX News it is, but that's kind of like saying that someone's a nicer guy than Atilla the Hun.


Cheers,

Michael