Patriotism, media credibility, and the bottom line

by Seeker 5 Replies latest jw friends

• 

  Seeker

  Interesting story about the media:

  http://www.sunspot.net/news/printedition/bal-to.media04oct04.story

  In a thread a few weeks back, I mentioned my belief that the corporations that had bought up the media outlets were more interested in profits for shareholders than objective reporting. Whatever the public wants, the newscasters are told to say. The above link is to a story about a Maryland TV station, and how the corporation that owns it provided a editorial to be read on the air supporting Bush's actions during this time.

  This is a terrible thing to do, and is causing controversy among staffers. After all, the news media is not designed to support the government, but to report facts. Sometimes the government is in the wrong, for instance during Watergate, and the news media needs the objectivity to report the facts. There is a reason we don't trust, say, Iraqi newscasts to tell the truth since we assume they merely report what the government wants them to report, and nothing else. What this corporation did to this Maryland news station is one step in that direction, taking away objectivity from the news personnel.

  Why did the corporation do this? Because it what's the public wants. With patriotic feelings running rampant, with every business feeling peer pressure to display the flag, the public wants to hear this sort of thing. So the corporation, mindful of the bottom line, forced the news station to read this statement. Like all isms, patriotism can go too far, and this is an example. No one will trust this news station to tell the truth about Bush in the future, for they have already declared they support him. It would be like getting the WTS PR spokespersons to admit wrongdoing on the part of the GB -- not likely to happen from such an non-objective source.

  Now the reality is probably differnt, for the news personnel objected to this, and are fighting to regain their credibility. Perhaps this will be just an aberration, and objectivity will be restored. But when corporations determine what news gets on the air, and what editorial stance the newscasters have to take, it's a reminder that you cannot trust the news media to necessarily tell the truth. They tell whatever their corporate owners decide to tell, and only what benefits the bottom line. Moral: Read and listen and watch from a variety of news sources, including sources outsides the country.
• 

  Julie

  Hi Seeker,

  :Moral: Read and listen and watch from a variety of news sources, including sources outsides the country.

  I couldn't agree with you more!! There is way too much opinion and rhetoric being called "news" these days. I marvel at what passes for "fair and balanced" these days. Seems those who make that claim the boldest are those who are the least of either. It is especially pathetic that people do not even try to achieve objective news and are very happy to have it served up with healthy doses of opinion, especially if it is their own (often uninformed) opinion. And people wonder why we are wide open to attacks from terrorists. We're to damn lazy to find out what is going on in the world and settle for having our ears tickled. To see all the ridiculous writings claiming God let this happen to us because we are so immoral is laughable. We would rather point the finger at all those Other People who ar so Immoral but we can't look in the mirror and see we let ourselves be duped every day. We are soft, fat, lazy and un/mis-informed, not to mention self-centered and materialistic. But that is more painful to admit than the obvious Immorality that is all around us. Just like parents who have children with bahavioral problems, it's not the parenting, oh heavens no! It's "genetic"!

  Sad state of affars my friend, thanks for helping to highlight it.

  Warm regards,
  Julie
• 

  Norm

  Hi Seeker and Julie,

  I agree with your observations. It seem to be that the bigger the country the less interest there is about the outside world. This of course is the cause of staggering ignorance. Personally I have many times been astonished at the display of such ignorance about any other country or what's happening outside the US. The similarity of statements made by US citicens and soviet citizens during the cold war is amazing. Both populations was in general of the opinion that they had the best living conditions in the whole world. One can understand how the soviets came to that conclusion, being told so incessantly by the soviet media, and without the possiblity of checking with the outside world. The US citicen however had and still have that opportunity but still remain generally just as ignorant.

  To hear people who have hardly ever been outside their native state go on about America being the best country in the world and how they would't live anywhere else, is just plain and utter stupid.

  Not that I would mind living in the US but is in NO WAY the best country in the world to live in!

  On my way over to "God's own country" on Wednesday on the plane from Paris, I read an interesting article in USA Today:

  “Some see that as reason to lift the ban. "We're in a different world, where we've got a president who needs to build coalitions and build them quickly," says Sen. Judd Gregg, R-N.H. "We need to give him the tools to do that."

  But Sen. Barbara Mikulski, DMd., says: "We now have a floating coalition. We can't have floating arms." If Bush wins even a partial waiver of the arms embargo, it wouldn't be the first time the United States has made common cause with undemocratic or unstable regimes to fight a common enemy. But some lawmakers wonder whether the benefits of such friendships outweigh the fallout.

  Past examples:
  
  During World War 11, the United States and Great Britain joined forces with Soviet dictator Josef Stalin to defeat Adolf Hitler. Stalin went on to build an "Iron Curtain" that took 50 years to bring down.
  
  During the 1960s and'70s, the United States shored up one South Vietnamese dictatorship after another in the hopes of holding North Vietnam at bay. When South Vietnam fell, the victorious Communists took possession of an enormous amount of abandoned U.S. military hardware.
  
  During the 1970s and'80s, the United States gave military equipment and other assistance to the teetering government of Shah Mohammad Reza Pahlevi in Iran, considered a key bulwark against communism. When he was ousted by a popular uprising, the Islamic fundamentalist government of Iran was left with a fleet of F-16 fighter jets and other weapons. In Afghanistan, the CIA ran a supposedly covert operation that was one of the worst kept secrets of the 1980s. Along with money and other aid, the US. government provided Afghan guerrillas with an undisclosed number of Stinger missiles. Introduction of the Stingers in 1986 proved the turning point of the 10-year war. When the Soviets retreated in 1989, the United States tried to buy back the remaining handheld anti-aircraft weapons. That effort was not successful.

  Many officials in the intelligence community say they do not believe many Stingers remain in Afghanistan. They also say it's unlikely such a sophisticated piece of equipment
  could remain usable this long in that country's harsh environment. Nonetheless, key U.S. policymakers say military leaders must take the possibility of Stingers into account if they go after bin Laden.

  "I don't think there's any illusion by our military as to the possibility that a lot of the weapons, or some of the weapons, could be turned on us," says Sen. Richard Shelby of Alabama, top Republican on the Senate Select Intelligence Committee.

  That's why some lawmakers are balking at Bush's proposal. "We've certainly seen from past experience we've got to be very careful who we give our military assistance to," says Rep. Nita Lowey, D-N.Y. "I would not agree to give the administration carte blanche." USA Today October 2, 2001

  To furhter short term goals I am afraid that the Bush administration yet again is about to form alliances and give weapons to groups they after some time will be in conflict with. Some things seem never to change.

  Arriving in the US I was again amazed at the amount of flagwaving and ads with the flag and the logo of some corporation on it. One of the most tasteless advertizing I have ever seen TV was selling all kinds of apparatus to festoon your car, trailer or other vehicles with flags.

  One is reminded of Bob Dylan' words: "Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings"

  Norm
• 

  teejay

  Hello, Seeker,

  I think there are still people in America who totally trust what their news media presents as news, but because of the cynicism and mistrust of the government on the part of the younger generation, these represent a dying breed. With so much ad money at stake, news outlets, both local and national, regularly engage in virtual contests to see how many viewers they can rate, and despite their statements to the contrary, shape their programs based on polls and Nielsen ratings.

  The line between actual, factual news and "spin" has always been a little fuzzy, but it has never been more so than since the attacks. One of the ominous by-products following the tidal wave of patriotism is that view individuals or organizations were willing to question anything, lest they be seen as un-American or outright traitorous. The news agencies have lost a bit more of their credibility, becoming little more than extensions of the White House's pr department.

  It's really a little sickening to see, but it's good that employees, at least, are bothered by the ominous possibilities and use what clout they have to stem the tide. Then, too, thanks to the Internet, we have access to all kinds of news sources that our parents didn't have. To get the whole story, people need to consult these. The truth is always out there, and there are always people and groups wanting to tell it ... it just may be a little hard to find.

  Then, the question resurfaces all over again: can I believe what they're telling me?

  peace,
  tj
  ................
  "When the only tool one has is a hammer, everything begins to look like a nail." -- Abraham Maslow
• 

  fodeja

  Norm,

  One is reminded of Bob Dylan' words: "Patriotism is the last refuge to which a scoundrel clings"

  Scoundrels can also cling to patriotic neckties:

  http://eagleswings.com/products.asp?ID=155&Solo=1&Display_Type=detail

  These guys are amazing. If you feel more religious than patriotic today, you may want to try this:

  http://eagleswings.com/products.asp?ID=170&Solo=1&Display_Type=detail

  They also have inspirational socks. I've always wanted to inspire people with my socks, however, so far most of them have taken offence.

  http://eagleswings.com/products.asp?ID=272&Solo=1&Display_Type=detail

  f., who clicked on an ad banner for the first time in years, just a minute ago
• 

  fodeja

  Now the reality is probably differnt, for the news personnel objected to this, and are fighting to regain their credibility. Perhaps this will be just an aberration, and objectivity will be restored.

  I'm having my doubts. What's amazing is the glaringly obvious manipulation that has been happening in the media without explicit statements such as the one you mentioned. I only caught a glimpse of CNN on the 11th of September, and it was a disgrace to journalism. Within the first couple of hours after the event, the presentation became more and more overloaded with patriotic symbols (animated flags and so on), the language changed from "terrorist attack" to "war" with recurring references to Pearl Harbor, and pretty soon you could hear not-so-subtle military-like drumrolls mixed into the sound.
  
  That's not journalism, it's cheap agitprop.

  f.