Page 1 of 112 1234561151101 ... LastLast
Results 1 to 20 of 2229

Thread: Role of the Media

  1. #1

    Role of the Media

    I've been thinking about this a lot and posted a couple of times on it, but wanted to get some discussion going on it.

    What is the role of the media in covering the news and this election? Is it to provide an unbiased, completely independent view of what's going on (to the best of the ability to be a completely neutral broadcast), or is it to provide some context to what is being said, and analyze those things based on objective facts/truths?

    Obviously if the latter is chosen it somewhat depends on your political stance as to whether or not the news is a viable source? While there have been lying politicians in the past, Donald Trump has really changed the way that news is being reported because a lot of his statements have absolutely no basis in truth at all, with a majority of things that he says being outright lies.

    Is the media responsible for reporting "fairly" on each candidate, even if there is one side who is blatantly making things up and presenting a clear danger for America if elected? Obviously I am extremely anti-Trump, so I feel that the media is doing its job in exposing the lunatic that he is, but I am also aware that this is a slippery slope because what if in the future this was being done to candidates who the station just opposes (as a lot of people already think is done towards Republicans).

    A lot of thoughts in there, but wanted to open up a thread to discuss this as a whole and what the media should actually be doing in an election like this.
    Mother So Dear '12

  2. #2
    I disagree with you
    ImTheCaptain's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Pennsylvania
    Posts
    42,155
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacsfan27 View Post
    I've been thinking about this a lot and posted a couple of times on it, but wanted to get some discussion going on it.

    What is the role of the media in covering the news and this election? Is it to provide an unbiased, completely independent view of what's going on (to the best of the ability to be a completely neutral broadcast), or is it to provide some context to what is being said, and analyze those things based on objective facts/truths?

    Obviously if the latter is chosen it somewhat depends on your political stance as to whether or not the news is a viable source? While there have been lying politicians in the past, Donald Trump has really changed the way that news is being reported because a lot of his statements have absolutely no basis in truth at all, with a majority of things that he says being outright lies.

    Is the media responsible for reporting "fairly" on each candidate, even if there is one side who is blatantly making things up and presenting a clear danger for America if elected? Obviously I am extremely anti-Trump, so I feel that the media is doing its job in exposing the lunatic that he is, but I am also aware that this is a slippery slope because what if in the future this was being done to candidates who the station just opposes (as a lot of people already think is done towards Republicans).

    A lot of thoughts in there, but wanted to open up a thread to discuss this as a whole and what the media should actually be doing in an election like this.
    seems appropriate


  3. #3
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever RJKarl's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    HB, CA
    Posts
    69,281
    The MSM has been very, very kind to Trump. No other candidate for any office I can remember would have gotten away with the number and seriousness of his lies. They have also neglected their duty in delving into his "business success". They are literally thousands of stories about him stiffing people and a history of other terrible business practices. Hell, even his sexual harassment suits have been basically ignored.

  4. #4
    Christiane Amanpour had a superb observation when she was on The Daily Show during one of the conventions. She essentially said that the media's role should be to objectively report the truth. There's no value in equal time, or analysis, or debate. Just report the truth.

  5. #5
    Quote Originally Posted by Deacsfan27 View Post
    to provide an unbiased, completely independent view of what's going on (to the best of the ability to be a completely neutral broadcast)
    I feel like this is the primary job of the news. This is also the primary responsibility of the people. Neither the news nor the people can skip this step. After both the news has presented the facts and the people have received them, then both can move on to:

    Quote Originally Posted by Deacsfan27 View Post
    to provide some context to what is being said, and analyze those things based on objective facts/truths?
    The news should attempt to find the people most qualified people to analyze the facts presented and then relay their personal opinion to the people.
    Last edited by Demonwolverine; 08-09-2016 at 03:21 PM.

  6. #6
    Quote Originally Posted by CantStandYa View Post
    Christiane Amanpour had a superb observation when she was on The Daily Show during one of the conventions. She essentially said that the media's role should be to objectively report the truth. There's no value in equal time, or analysis, or debate. Just report the truth.
    The problem here is "what is the truth"?

    I think Donald Trump is a danger to society if he is elected POTUS, but that's not an objective truth. There are plenty of people who feel the other way and that Hillary is a threat.

    I would argue based on what has been said and demonstrated the past year that Trump is by far the bigger threat and it's not even close, but when some people don't deal in the same reality it's hard to get a hard truth.
    Mother So Dear '12

  7. #7
    Quote Originally Posted by CantStandYa View Post
    Christiane Amanpour had a superb observation when she was on The Daily Show during one of the conventions. She essentially said that the media's role should be to objectively report the truth. There's no value in equal time, or analysis, or debate. Just report the truth.
    I understand that analysis and debate is where news stations become skewed or bias, but personally, I want to hear someone like Michael Hayden's opinion on which candidate would be a greater danger to the country. Nobody knows for sure what will happen, but I would assume Michael Hayden has a much better idea than me or the vast majority of people.
    Last edited by Demonwolverine; 08-09-2016 at 12:36 PM.

  8. #8
    Dickie Hemric
    sailordeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liver than you'll ever be
    Posts
    13,199
    Quote Originally Posted by CantStandYa View Post
    Christiane Amanpour had a superb observation when she was on The Daily Show during one of the conventions. She essentially said that the media's role should be to objectively report the truth. There's no value in equal time, or analysis, or debate. Just report the truth.
    Did she say when she would start doing it?

  9. #9
    Keeping in the spirit of the other thread about sticking to the topic and not the messenger, Sailor perhaps you could refrain from attacking the messenger here and instead take on the topic. Her quote was:

    "I now say truthful, not neutral. There is a difference here. Truthful is bringing the truth. Neutral can be creating a false equivalence between this side and that."

    Clearly referencing the current political climate and the Trump effect but I think it raises interesting questions: is it a journalist's job to ensure that someone is permitted to have their message heard when they are on a network (conducting an interview for instance) or is it more important that the journalist be after the pursuit of truth?

    What keeps coming to mind for me specifically about this election is the GOP debate where Trump fields a question about past comments he has made on Libya where he spoke about going in and getting Gaddafi while now attacking Clinton/Obama for making the decision that Trump endorsed at the time period. Trump flat out said he never said that. The video was up and ready to go, the video was rolled, Trump indeed said what the moderator put forth, Trump's response: I never said that.

    How do you tackle that? If you push back against his statement, you're called out for being unfair to the candidate by his supporters and a liberal sympathizer/typical mainstream media. If you don't tackle that, you're perhaps remaining neutral but have certainly abandoned any journalistic effort at the "truth," at least by any understanding that "truth" has an objective definition.

  10. #10
    Dickie Hemric
    sailordeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liver than you'll ever be
    Posts
    13,199
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Keeping in the spirit of the other thread about sticking to the topic and not the messenger, Sailor perhaps you could refrain from attacking the messenger here and instead take on the topic. Her quote was:

    "I now say truthful, not neutral. There is a difference here. Truthful is bringing the truth. Neutral can be creating a false equivalence between this side and that."

    Clearly referencing the current political climate and the Trump effect but I think it raises interesting questions: is it a journalist's job to ensure that someone is permitted to have their message heard when they are on a network (conducting an interview for instance) or is it more important that the journalist be after the pursuit of truth?

    What keeps coming to mind for me specifically about this election is the GOP debate where Trump fields a question about past comments he has made on Libya where he spoke about going in and getting Gaddafi while now attacking Clinton/Obama for making the decision that Trump endorsed at the time period. Trump flat out said he never said that. The video was up and ready to go, the video was rolled, Trump indeed said what the moderator put forth, Trump's response: I never said that.

    How do you tackle that? If you push back against his statement, you're called out for being unfair to the candidate by his supporters and a liberal sympathizer/typical mainstream media. If you don't tackle that, you're perhaps remaining neutral but have certainly abandoned any journalistic effort at the "truth," at least by any understanding that "truth" has an objective definition.


    It was a quip but a quip with a point. Amanpour used to be my favorite reporter at CNN. She constantly reported live from danger and war zones. She appeared reasonable and clear. Then I stopped watching CNN, except very rarely, for a few years. Then came the migrant crisis last summer and Ms Amanpour by any standard simply served as a mouthpiece for obvious misleading, polemics and propaganda. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Then she became a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. I don't know if she believes that propaganda or has simply sold out and follows editor's instructions. She has allowed herself to become a propaganda mouthpiece, like something out of TASS. It's sad.

  11. #11
    I think Trump is a complete clown and will not vote for him, but as I've said before, I don't think his lies are any more egregious than Obama's during his campaign. I realize that most people on here like, or at least tolerate, Obama so you'll see it differently, but as someone who objectively does not like either of them, I don't see much difference between the two. Their style of delivery is different, but the truthfulness of their messages and the type of person they are targeting is generally the same.

    The media spun Obama's lies a certain way that ended up working out in his favor because plenty of dumbasses fell for it, and they have the ability to spin Trump's lies a certain way and some rubes will fall for it one way or the other. This ability to be easily politically duped is a big reason why American society has been in a slow drain circle for a while now, and will continue to do so. But, it's what we have positioned ourselves for and what we deserve, so everyone for themselves at this point IMO.

  12. #12
    Rusty Larue
    DeaconSig's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    God's Country
    Posts
    10,228
    Let me know how it goes living off the grid, Kaczynski.

  13. #13
    Quote Originally Posted by Wakeforest22890 View Post
    Keeping in the spirit of the other thread about sticking to the topic and not the messenger, Sailor perhaps you could refrain from attacking the messenger here and instead take on the topic.
    Perhaps not. Oh well.

  14. #14
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    I think Trump is a complete clown and will not vote for him, but as I've said before, I don't think his lies are any more egregious than Obama's during his campaign. I realize that most people on here like, or at least tolerate, Obama so you'll see it differently, but as someone who objectively does not like either of them, I don't see much difference between the two. Their style of delivery is different, but the truthfulness of their messages and the type of person they are targeting is generally the same.

    The media spun Obama's lies a certain way that ended up working out in his favor because plenty of dumbasses fell for it, and they have the ability to spin Trump's lies a certain way and some rubes will fall for it one way or the other. This ability to be easily politically duped is a big reason why American society has been in a slow drain circle for a while now, and will continue to do so. But, it's what we have positioned ourselves for and what we deserve, so everyone for themselves at this point IMO.
    Many people are saying that this is a dumb post. Not me. Many people are though.

  15. #15
    Football. Bloody Hell.

  16. #16
    Quote Originally Posted by 2&2 Slider To Leyritz View Post
    I think Trump is a complete clown and will not vote for him, but as I've said before, I don't think his lies are any more egregious than Obama's during his campaign. I realize that most people on here like, or at least tolerate, Obama so you'll see it differently, but as someone who objectively does not like either of them, I don't see much difference between the two. Their style of delivery is different, but the truthfulness of their messages and the type of person they are targeting is generally the same.

    The media spun Obama's lies a certain way that ended up working out in his favor because plenty of dumbasses fell for it, and they have the ability to spin Trump's lies a certain way and some rubes will fall for it one way or the other. This ability to be easily politically duped is a big reason why American society has been in a slow drain circle for a while now, and will continue to do so. But, it's what we have positioned ourselves for and what we deserve, so everyone for themselves at this point IMO.
    You objectively don't like Barack Obama the same way you don't objectively like Donald Trump?
    Mother So Dear '12

  17. #17
    I think it is the medias duty to continue to shill for whomever the Democratic party nominates for president. To discontinue doing so after so many years would discombobulate the public and could cause mass hysteria among left leaning people.

  18. #18
    PM a mod to cement your internet status forever
    PhDeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Posts
    105,850
    Quote Originally Posted by sailordeac View Post
    It was a quip but a quip with a point. Amanpour used to be my favorite reporter at CNN. She constantly reported live from danger and war zones. She appeared reasonable and clear. Then I stopped watching CNN, except very rarely, for a few years. Then came the migrant crisis last summer and Ms Amanpour by any standard simply served as a mouthpiece for obvious misleading, polemics and propaganda. I couldn't believe what I was seeing. Then she became a cheerleader for Hillary Clinton. I don't know if she believes that propaganda or has simply sold out and follows editor's instructions. She has allowed herself to become a propaganda mouthpiece, like something out of TASS. It's sad.
    Or maybe you can't handle the truth.

  19. #19
    Dickie Hemric
    sailordeac's Avatar
    Join Date
    Mar 2011
    Location
    Liver than you'll ever be
    Posts
    13,199
    Quote Originally Posted by PhDeac View Post
    Or maybe you can't handle the truth.
    That's the most original thought you have ever had. Unfortunately for you, it's still mistaken.

  20. #20
    Quote Originally Posted by sailordeac View Post
    That's the most original thought you have ever had. Unfortunately for you, it's still mistaken.
    sailordeac, you are a rabble rouser!

Tags for this Thread

Posting Permissions

  • You may not post new threads
  • You may not post replies
  • You may not post attachments
  • You may not edit your posts
  •