What shall we talk about?

Have the Media lost their independence?
One of my biggest concerns is my perception that the Media have lost their independence from political and corporate manipulation and pressure. This is most clearly seen in television and radio. The press seems to have retained some of it's integrity.

TV seems dominated by product shilling and political advocacy in the news rather than only in editorial areas. This is driven by the profit motive. 24-hour cable "news" are the worst offenders because they are 100 percent profit centers. They have become the tabloids of the airwaves. It appears this has happened when the network TV news departments changed from non-profit status to expected profit centers, the worst policy I've seen in news since the departure of Murrow and Cronkite.

In other areas, there are clear conflicts of interest when TV networks also become owners of sports teams or have financial interests in other public arenas, such as publishing. Their networks are used to benefit their profits under the color of "news."

I won't go into the depressing quality of local TV news stations of the networks, especially outside the major cities. They are only fit to watch for the weather reports sandwiched in between "if it bleeds, it leads" stories.

Without Media independence and integrity, where can the public get factual information? Where can the public find protection against corrupt government and corporate dominance if not through a vigilant media? The Internet, even with all of its problems, may be our last chance to stay well and accurately informed.

BBB

groovy

Re: What shall we talk about?


Just FYI this isn't the former PUP board and it isn't restricted to just one ideology or another. Please see: http://www.able2know.com/forums/viewtopic.php?t=21513 for more information. Thanks and enjoy the Debate Room.

Reporter Apologizes for Iraq Coverage
Reporter Apologizes for Iraq Coverage
By E&P Staff
Published: March 29, 2004
http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000474545

NEW YORK In the wake of Richard Clarke's dramatic personal apology to the families of 9/11 victims last week -- on behalf of himself and his government -- for failing to prevent the terrorist attacks, one might expect at least a few mea culpas related to the release of false information on the Iraq threat before and after the war.

This has not happened so far, with President Bush on Wednesday going so far as to joke about the missing weapons of mass destruction at a correspondents dinner in Washington.

While the major media, from The New York Times on down, has largely remained silent about their own failings in this area, a young columnist for a small paper in Fredericksburg, Va., has stepped forward.

"The media are finished with their big blowouts on the anniversary of the invasion of Iraq, and there is one thing they forgot to say: We're sorry," Rick Mercier wrote, in a column published Sunday in The Free Lance-Star.

"Sorry we let unsubstantiated claims drive our coverage. Sorry we were dismissive of experts who disputed White House charges against Iraq. Sorry we let a band of self-serving Iraqi defectors make fools of us. Sorry we fell for Colin Powell's performance at the United Nations. Sorry we couldn't bring ourselves to hold the administration's feet to the fire before the war, when it really mattered.

"Maybe we'll do a better job next war."

Mercier admitted that it was "absurd to receive this apology from a person so low in the media hierarchy. You really ought to be getting it from the editors and reporters at the agenda-setting publications, such as The New York Times and The Washington Post."

Mercier, an editor and writer at the newspaper who writes a column two or three times a month, told E&P that the column was sparked by what he saw as "a need for accountability and reflection" given the seriousness of the current conflict in Iraq and the failure to find WMDs there or a strong Saddam link to al Qaeda. He saw little of that soul-searching in the one-year anniversary coverage. "By neglecting to fully employ their critical-thinking faculties, the media not only failed their readers and viewers, they failed our democracy," Mercier said.

Concluding his column, Mercier declared, "there's no excusing that failure. The only thing that can be said is, Sorry."

Editor and Publisher is the trade rag for -- you guessed it -- editors and publishers of US daily newspapers.

It's a safe assumption that most of the publishers and a large minority of the editors are Republicans. (I say safe because once upon a time I used to know personally a lot of them.)

I have been mouth-falling-open shocked at some of their articles this year.

Now that I have a better understanding of the format, please be aware that we can invite Conservatives to join us in a civilized debate (perhaps that was clear to others before; I am a little slow sometimes... )

With Bumble's suggestion I'd like to add also:

"Is the concern about electronic voting irregularities and the potential for abuse strictly a Democratic/liberal concern? Why does it seem that Republicans/conservatives don't share the same sense of urgency?"

(Question to the moderator: is it proper to proceed like this, or would it be more direct to simply start a thread, specify the participation and format, and have at it?)

We don't have electronic voting in Oz, but a common theme is that the conservative party always tries to make voting as complicated as possible, while the left wing party always tries to simplify voting. It's my belief that the con's think that those who are smart will naturally vote for them, and they've got more chance of tricking the less intelligent (who they believe are more likely to vote left wing) into voting incorrectly and thus submitting an informal vote.

Greg Palast has a cogent analysis on the past (and pending) minority voter disenfranchisement. Here's just the tail end of the article; the rest is here: