Media Credibility in today's world

[mooeypoo]

I was just thinking, after watching CNN and the news here about a really bothering question.

 

There's no doubt that the media (in all its various shapes and appearances) has incredible ammount of power over the world's population. The media, theoretically (god, I hope not practically) can state flat-out lies and the population of the world would believe it, if it's convincing - or "visual" enough.

 

If any of you has seen "Wag the Dog" - you'd know what I mean. If not, think about this hypothetical question (I stress: HYPOTHETICAL. I don't deny any event occuring in Bosnia even for a second, this is just to prove a point) -- What if the war didn't really happened AS it was presented in the news. Say, there was a war, but not as many killings, or not as much violence, etc. Theoretically - we'd never know. The only reason we do know about what happened - at least partially, since no one will know the ENTIRE length of the violence until he spoke personally with a survivor (something that I did actually..) - is because of the physical evidence of speaking to survivors and hearing the same testimonial from multiple people.

 

My question, therefore, is how can we - for a second - trust ANY kind of media feed?

Even if we see the pictures, we can never know if they were "taken out of context" to make the subject appear to the benefit of the media group itself.

 

Isn't that thing the WORST irony of the century?? We live in a world that is completely supported and lies on the roots of communications and Media...

 

Can we even TRUST it?

 

~moo

[amoda]

I agree with you somewhat but i'm sure that there is something being done to stop something like that happening. You also must try to apply some thinking to what you hear/see in the news. If they start saying that the war is non-violent and that people are holding hands kinda thing then you should know that something like that wouldnt be real. Another thing is like when the group that claimed to clone a baby came on the news and all. Basically every single news station had it atleast once a day but that didnt make it any more realistic.

[fafalone]

For me I confirm things through foreign and domestic media, and other sources such as Cryptome.

[iglak]

we can relatively trust any facts the media gives us.

we can't trust any analyses of any facts.

we can't trust any absence of facts.

 

in the case of the cloned baby, the only facts we had were that that group of people claim to have cloned a human baby. that's it.

 

and if any statistics are presented, we know that one study showed those results, but we still have no idea how many studies did not show those results, and if that one study was faked or done wrong.

 

if the media were to flat out lie to the viewers and give us completely wrong information about war or whatever... then all too many people would believe it. the world would be doomed. DOOMED! like 1984

[mooeypoo]

I'm just happy no one chose the first one for now

 

But I do agree we can trust media, I'm just not sure we can trust it 100%.. or, better said - I'm sure we CANT trust it 100%. I don't trust my own country's media 100% either, by the way. You just can't know what they want to show you -- if they do that 'cause its true, or if they do that 'cause they want the ratings.

 

I'm not saying that we should doubt everything though. If there was a fire somewhere with casualties and such, I'm not sure I'd DOUBT that.

But I would doubt feeds I see that seem to be LEADING me.. like the war in bosnia, for instance. They didn't show everything, so I can't really know what went on there, only what the media showed.

It showed a lot - but not all.

 

Accidentaly, I have a friend who came from the war there. I know now how it was FOR REAL. The media didn't LIE. It just didn't state the entire truth.

 

What movie was it that the big media/news tycoon started CREATING news so he'll have more ratings? I think one of 007 movies... it was a good one

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

To me, American media is very untrustworthy because they are so obviously trying to build viewership for their corporate sponsors. Do you think they would report negatively on a certain company if that company bought millions of dollars worth of air time or full page ads in the newspapers? And they know if they prey on our fears they will keep us glued to the television or reading the papers. "Is our drinking water safe? Tune in at 10pm!" Michael Moore did a beautiful job of warning Americans about this in Bowling for Columbine. And recently I read about a study on the three major national networks that talked about how Peter Jennings of ABC was influencing voters by nodding his head and smiling more often when he was talking about Republican candidates. Also, I am sick of hearing them stir up support for the war in Iraq by talking on and on about the poor contractors who were killed and burned in Fallujah recently. They make them sound like plumbers and engineers when in fact they were mercenaries and soldiers of fortune making $120,000 a year on contract to Haliburton and other subsidiaries. Whether or not they are told to report things this way I can't say. The affect it has on the public just happens to support the present administration in a way that makes my flesh crawl.

 

For those of you in countries other than the United States, please do me a favor. Get the United Nations to declare George W. Bush a danger to world peace. I will personally guarantee you he has weapons of mass destruction at his disposal. When the UN's foreign forces start landing on our shores to liberate the oppressed populace and take over our national resources in order to safeguard them, I am positive the American people will see our country and our media in a new light.

[Skye]

Err you'd need the security council to ok that, and the US has veto power.

[Phi for All]

Err you'd need the security council to ok that, and the US has veto power.

If Bush is re-elected, I'll bet anything he tries to end our membership in the UN and make them leave our sacred soil. Can we count on Australia to liberate us then?

[atinymonkey]

Also, I am sick of hearing them stir up support for the war in Iraq by talking on and on about the poor contractors[/i'] who were killed and burned in Fallujah recently. They make them sound like plumbers and engineers when in fact they were mercenaries and soldiers of fortune making $120,000 a year on contract to Haliburton and other subsidiaries.

 

No, some of them are just contractors. Careful with the interpretation of the media, the people out to 'expose' the real story often swing too far the opposite way. I know 3 people who are contractors out in Iraq, and they are far from being mercenaries. I work with a guy who used to be a ships engineer in Basra when the last conflict kicked up.

 

Mercenaries, despite there reputation, are usually quite businesslike and tend to train rather than be paid to solder. Only dictatorships like Mugabe’s tend to need to pay for solders.

 

Mind you, I haven’t seen the story crop up. I can’t verify much coming out of Iraq so I tend to let it stay as background noise.

[alext87]

Ok maybe we can't trust the media who exaggrate point, start up gossips, twist facts but you have to expect this we are only human beings trying to make our life have a purpose and fulfill it!

 

However, who can we trust then, who else can supply us with the news of the world and the facts and figures that we want to know?

 

American media i agree are the worst and blame them for causing the large gun killing in the States as they indue fear into people and make them more supicious of their neighbours. American has 1100 gun killings each year and also has more black crimial on TV than the representative population. The media are a dangerous weapon!

 

We can complain about Bush and Blair but is there anything we can do except every 4/5 years when we get the vote?

[Phi for All]

We can complain about Bush and Blair but is there anything we can do except every 4/5 years when we get the vote?

1. Gain knowledge. Learn everything you can so you have at least some protection from lies.

2. Be aware of systems that seem to do one thing but really do another. We think the media in the US is here to inform us. They really are here to bring advertisers to us. Just like Xerox is not in the copier business, they are in the toner & service contract business.

3. Get wise to the fact that in the US the two-party system is being used against us. Take a look at the political compass website featured in another thread in this politics area of the forum. Democrats and Republicans are all grouped up in the same corner (except Kucinich & Sharpton). They all cater to big business, with the understanding that what's good for the mega-corporations just HAS to be good for the people.

 

I'll let others add to this list, but I will say that MoveOn.org has a wonderful book called "50 Ways to Love Your Country" that will help.

[atinymonkey]

No, some of them are just contractors.

 

 

Crap. Turns out that the CIA like to use the term 'contractors' insted of 'employees' in an effort to sound like a cool spy branch. I should have expected that from the world’s least secret service.

[Phi for All]

The present US administration calls their education program "No Child Left Behind". They proposed it, got it put through and then underfunded it by $27 billion.

 

They promised seniors a prescription drug benefit, but then put through a bill that gave the big drug companies $139 billion and forces seniors to pay more for prescriptions.

 

Their plan to lessen restrictions on air pollution is called "Clear Skies".

 

Their plan to allow unrestricted logging is called "Healthy Forests".

 

Everything this administration has done in Iraq almost seems calculated to foment as much anger from ALL the Islamic nations as possible. They bombed a mosque. They've humiliated Islamic prisoners in ways that strike at the heart of their religion. Then Bush shows his face on Arab television to apologize for it, saying "this is not the America I know", as if it is not his responsibility but OURS.

 

When questioned about any of this, they claim they are being misrepresented by the "liberal media". They have made this into such a sound byte that people forget that the media in the US is owned by huge mega-corporations who all have a vested interest in keeping Bush in office so that the last half-century's worth of social, economic and environmental reforms can be done away with, to make big business even more profitable.

 

This is the main reason I no longer trust US media. I learn more about what's really happening in the US by listening to the BBC.

[mooeypoo]

Shoot, I just wrote an extensive reply and it got erased. How annoying.

 

In any case, here's a short version of it:

 

Media has a LOT of influences on people, including how society behaves. It's true that its a "both-way" relationship -- what the public WANTS to see is what the Media will preffer to present for Raiting purposes -- but it's also what the MEDIA shows -- And the WAY the media presents things, that influences a society.

 

Phi - was it you that mentioned "Bowling for Columbine"? it's an excellent example for what I mean now. How media shows specific things and ignore others, and how media (taken from the film) tends to SCARE people even if it means they exagerate completely.

 

In israel for instance, there s a huge debate about media influence.

 

People here began to feel more "adapt" to the entire bombing/terrorism situation. When we hear about a "small" shooting, or a "small" bombing - it's mentioned in the news, but it's not taking as big a time as it did when the fightings STARTED.

 

Theres a huge argument whether this approach is good or bad in israel, but one hting is OBVIOUS: The media plays a huge huge role in it, and in the way people react to such situations.

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

When we hear about a "small" shooting, or a "small" bombing - it's mentioned in the news, but it's not taking as big a time as it did when the fightings STARTED.~moo

Isn't this terrible? Like there could be a "small" shooting or bombing! Being insulated in the middle of my huge country, I find it amazing that tiny Israel could keep its sanity amidst so much aggression. We have lakes we could fit the whole of Israel in! How could any bombing not make everyone cringe? When you say the media plays a huge part in it, do you feel they downplay the danger? If you had our approach to media, you'd be in a bunker changing your underwear every 5 minutes! If you've seen Bowling for Columbine (I had mentioned it before) then you know the US media, given a choice between covering a dog pulling an infant from a raging river or the discovery of a cache of weapons in a local gang neighborhood, will go for the guns EVERY TIME, no question!

 

Do you think Israel's media shelters you from the aggressions of your neighboring countries?

[mooeypoo]

Yeah, people are starting to question whether we ARE keeping our sanity.

 

More and more people here seek professional help. More and more SHOULD and don't. We have a lot of free 1800 call centers and such -- and yet, the society "naturally" goes to a state of numbness.

 

There's a limit to what you can handle. I, personally, have lost five friends. Every time I hear about a bombing and a shooting I check to see if I know anyone. The moment I realise I don't, I just move on. Otherwise, you're just "stuck" into the entire thing, and you SERIOUSLY lose your sanity.

 

It's not only israel by the way. I doubt americans get too personally shocked and appalled (directly i mean) when there is a roberry or a shooting going on there. It's a matter of society. You can't keep letting yourself wallow in the same thing -- life must go on, and people aventually get tired of staying inside their homes and wait for something bad to happen.

 

About your question: I don't think our media CAN shelter us, even if it tried. Don't forget almost EVERYONE here were (or are) in the military. It's obligatory in israel, which means that EVERYONE knows exactly what is going on, and it also makes everyone a bit more aware of their patriotism (or lack of it, sometimes). People are very much involved in EVERYTHING.

 

Sometimes I find it wrong, by the way. In a democracy, the people should decide who the government would be, and all the rules and such. But SOME THING should be left for the decision of those who KNOW what they're doing (like decisions about DIRECT security matters and such).

 

What I find EXTREMELY biased, is the palestinian media. There was a BBC coverage on the entire hting about a year ago, showing exactly how most (not all, granted, but most) of the palestinian stations PAY children to rub chicken blood on them and pretend they're dying, so that the media will roll this all over the world.

 

No one in the world is perfect - and country administrations and politics are often FAR from it -- but often the media choses to show things that prevent the viewer from reaching a TRUE conclusion.

 

Like the tapes that are being showed of Osama Bin Laden.

The way they keep showing it over and over and over -- so that every second someone is doing something that even REMOTELY resembles anything that MIGHT sound like a terrorism act (like tying his shoes in the middle of the airport) everyone connect it with Bin Laden.

 

You see what I mean? Sometimes the answers lie RIGHT under our noses, but since we're being FED all the time by the media, we tend to reach conclusions VERY very fast. Too fast, sometimes.

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

I doubt americans get too personally shocked and appalled (directly i mean) when there is a roberry or a shooting going on there. It's a matter of society. You can't keep letting yourself wallow in the same thing -- life must go on, and people aventually get tired of staying inside their homes and wait for something bad to happen.

A few years ago, there was a case where a woman in New York City was assaulted & killed, over a period of a half hour, in front of over 30 witnesses. Someone called the police AFTER the woman was dead. It was on a residential street with high rise apartments all around. The people who saw it did nothing. The media wrote it up as just another impersonal NYC tragedy, making New Yorkers seem even more callous & uncaring.

 

Psychologists dug deeper & identified it as a problem of context. Everyone who witnessed the assault was horrified by it, and JUST ASSUMED SOMEBODY ELSE HAD CALLED THE POLICE. Because of the sheer volume of witnesses and people available to go to this woman's aid, nobody did anything. If this had happened in an isolated area, it would have been more likely that any witness would have done something to help.

 

I think the whole US is like that. We are so huge we just assume that somebody is doing something about EVERYTHING.

 

Sometimes the answers lie RIGHT under our noses' date=' but since we're being FED all the time by the media, we tend to reach conclusions VERY very fast. Too fast, sometimes.

 

~moo[/quote']Many people have learned how to put the right "spin" on their stories to attract media attention. They may not be able to get the media to lie, but they know what the media is looking for and try to give it to them.

[mooeypoo]

Yeah, but the point is that the media has SUCH a huge power on affecting people - that its effects we can also see throughout a long period of time. Like in education, for instance.

 

I say the word "Iran" and people automatically think either Atom, Terrorism or Women with covered faces.

While those ARE significant things in Iran, they're not everything. On the contrary, in terms of religious tolerance, for instance, Iran is MUCH MUCH better than any other muslim country. Jews who live in Iran are permitted to practice ALL their holidays and don't need to hide.

Plus, technologically, it's one of the most ADVANCED countries that exist in the middle east.

The country is not FREE, but its not as terrible (at least culture wise) as the media makes it seem.

 

So its true people spin their stories so that the media shows them in a different light, but sometimes - the media doesn't need to flat out LIE, it just needs to "not show all" -- and it changes the ENTIRE perspective.

 

The media has a very big responsability it sometimes forgets it must keep.

 

If you show a picture from THE WRONG ANGLE -- the entire story is told in a different light to the people. Different light that sometimes can be an actual LIE.

 

I find it disturbing.

 

~moo

[PerpetualYnquisitive]

...as far as I could throw a wet mattress up a spiral staircase.

 

Here are just two reasons why; COINTELPRO and Operation Mockingbird.

 

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/COINTELPRO

http://www.whatreallyhappened.com/RANCHO/POLITICS/MOCK/mockingbird.html

[mooeypoo]

Dude, I wish there *was* anything that controls (even by a little!) media companies.

 

I really doubt there are.. not even CIA or FBI.

Too many things are being published (and damaging to those two groups by the way) every day, for them to control the media.

 

~moo

[Phi for All]

Not that I'm condoning any conspiract theories, but mooey is right, the CIA takes too much flak to be at the heart of any media control. The NSA, however, has a charter that allows it to work inside US territory. And like the CIA, they have an undisclosed budget. And their expertise is also spying.

[YT2095]

trust NO ONE where money and prestige are concerned, there`s always a hidden agenda!

 

cynical maybe, but more often than not, True!

[mooeypoo]

True, true. However, by the ammount of damaging data that is being published about the NSA / CIA and FBI I would doubt they CONTROL the media.

 

Affect, maybe. But not control.

 

I'm sure they'd LIKE TO though

 

~moo

[Dave]

The major intelligence communities have quite a lot of control over what the press publish; after all, the press usually get their stories from leaks within the intelligence community. So in a sense they can control the flow of information, but only to a certain degree - obviously big stories can't be kept secret for long. You also have to realise that the intelligence community is very capable of releasing misinformation and have probably done so on many occasions. I'd also be surprised if they didn't have quite a few contacts within the major news networks as well to stop them publishing certain stories. So maybe they have a bit more influence than you might think.

[mooeypoo]

I know, I'm sure they have INFLUENCE I just odn't think intelligence groups CONTROL the media.

 

And, by the way, that just strengthens my claim that media cannot be trusted...

 

 

~moo