Main stream media

[Tawasakm]

It seems to me that it is important for people to be reliably informed about events in the world. Iraq springs to mind quickly but there are many other things in the world which also need accurate reporting. I am interested to know if people think the mainstream media (which is most peoples source of information of course) actually is reliable in performing its function.

I would also be gratified if people could leave a post explaining why they do or do not find the media reliable and why.

[Guest eureka]

I have not voted but will think about it. I would give a confident answer only with qualifications. There is a wide disparity in the reliability of the media in various countries. I could be reasonably comfortable with the quality of information available in some nations - usually those where concentration of ownership is not heavy. In other nations, like our friends to the south, the quality is not questionable since it is simply not there.

The concentration in Canada is also disturbing but has one saving grace in that the ownerships are in the media business. This gives a certain reliability in that there are boundaries though there is bias and imbalance in total.

[caesar]

It is not what our media tells us that is the problem; it is that they do not report on. Our own media is mainly owned by Can West and they tend to only report on that which promotes their own point of view. Too much opinion and not enough facts.

[Newfie Canadian]

I submit that, and I've said this before, that the media never ever gives the whole entire story on anything. Their stories are edited into tiny little 30 second, 1 or 2 minute sound bites (generally) which isn't enough time to give the whole story of anything.

Add to that the biases of various news media, whether liberal, conservative or whatever, and we don't have a chance.

[The Terrible Sweal]

Anyone who has ever been actually involved in a story in the media can usually find an astonishing number of utter error in the reports.

The media as we know it is incapable of rendering straightforward truth.

[Tawasakm]

Does anyone of you actually have any ideas on how to reverse these negative trends?

[The Terrible Sweal]

Ensure the universal provision of a decent critical liberal education in the public schools.

[Guest eureka]

Agreed, TS. I would also think legislation setting limits to concentration of media ownership,

[redmos]

Wow. So I'm the only one out there who thinks that we have access to reliable media information sources, eh?

Think about it this way. If the media were as bad as everyone says it is, no one would be able to have a reasonable discussion on this forum.

Were there no media, we wouldn't have an opinion.

Were the media entirely polarised, everyone would simply divide into factions and spout brilliantly worded rhetorical arguments that essentially just insult the opponents and win arguments by making them personal. A tale full of sound and fury, told by an idiot, signifying nothing.

Since this isn't the case, the media, while not perfect, is doing something right, because I'll bet few people in this post visited a newsroom today to form their own opinion.

[caesar]

You have to visit a LOT of news sites and then do a lot of research to find credible sources of the news.

[Slavik44]

You have to visit a LOT of news sites and then do a lot of research to find credible sources of the news.

that is the best part about the news, after you read 200 hundred accounts of what happend you finally know what happend by eliminating all the alternatives.

[Tawasakm]

redmos,

Wow. So I'm the only one out there who thinks that we have access to reliable media information sources, eh?

I was only referring to 'mainstream' media, redmos, rather then media in its entirety. Since I'm not completely clear on your opinion can I ask if your answer still holds true if you are referring only to mainstream media?

[redmos]

I am talking about the mainstream media. And yes, I think you do have to go fishing between news channels to get a few sides of a story and put it together.

I think we have an enormous information gathering capacity available at the click of a few buttons. Now sure, there are problems with the public being uninformed. One of the severe criticisms in the immediate aftermath of 9/11 was that very few Americans actually realised that they were so unpopular in the world. And sure, there are some serious problems in the tendency of news towards infotainment, but on the whole (and maybe I'm being optimistic here), I think we're not that poorly informed.

Out of the people who watch the news regularly, I think most have a good idea that there are troubles in Iraq, what has been the fallout of the Canadian and American elections, etc. I think the problem generally lies in the fact that many people just don't bother with the news, and media literacy is lacking among those who do. There is a post in the Canadian/Federal Politics forum about the introduction of Fox News to Canada, where someone is comparing Fox News to CNN and essentially claiming that CNN is biased, but Fox isn't. I think it's a matter of everyone thinking about what they watch.

Fox is biased. CNN is biased. The CBC is biased. The BBC is biased. Every paper, every media outlet has some point it tries to get across. People will claim the journalism shouldn't be about opinion, but that can't be true. Every news desk has an editor who decides what will make it to air, so the selection of stories itself is biased.

In North America, the war in Iraq still garners more headlines than the more serious problem in Sudan. Why? Because someone has decided it's more newsworthy. Is that right or wrong? Is the media doing its job?

I think they're doing a lot of good to put the issues they can out there, but we still have to put in the work to figure out where they're coming at it from, why, and he we should take it. If Fox prints something flattering about Bush, I'll ignore it. It's expected. It's when they print something critical of him that you have to watch. It's the same with the Toronto Star and the Liberal Party.

I think we expect too much in terms of objectivity from a media that does have its own agenda, and its own concerns.

[MapleBear]

America's media are rotten to the core. Many liberals rightly criticize the right-wing and "mainstream" media but don't realize that the liberal media is also corrupt.

For example, Seattle boasts several "alternative" tabloids - the Seattle Weekly, The Stranger and Eat The State - that bash George W. Bush with the best of them, but they're actually corporate gatekeepers. They help dispense disinformation and are especially active in sabotaging local elections.

A man named Geov Parrish writes for both the Seattle Weeky and Eat The State and now has a national soapbox. Reality Check: Parrish is a classic media whore, but liberals either adore him or ignore him.

Nothing will change until people start thinking outside the box. Only independent thinking skills can penetrage the avalanche of propaganda that is dumped on us daily. I peruse the media daily, not just to keep up on the news but to study their propaganda techniques.

People need to learn get their news from multiple sources, including private websites, and use a little logic in separating truth from fiction.