View Single Post
Old 04-12-07 | 12:25 PM
  #125  
Thrifty1's Avatar
Thrifty1
Senior Member
 
Joined: Jun 2005
Posts: 780
Likes: 0
From: OK
Originally Posted by Coloradopenguin
I too will bite . . . as a journalist (just a plain ole country editor from a small town weekly newspaper ), the press is one component in the debate process, and the national media (think CNN, FOX, MSNBC) thrive on the crisis du jour. But journalists are primarily the messenger and the "news" is usually initiated by other parties. The reason the press has the power that it does to shape public opinion is because we are conduits to large segments of the public, and our power is our ability to sway that opinion.
The power brokers understand that as messengers, journalists are seldom equipped to fully understand the subjects they report on. Therefore it is easy to manipulate the process.

It is our job as journalists, and especially editors, is to guard against that manipulation, to make sure the reporters verify facts and work to present as many aspects of a subject as possible. With something as complex as global warming, the media is manipulated by the sources and their reports are only as viable as the sources they have access to. Add to that the tendancy for editors, publishers, and producers to have their own bias.

The public paints the bias in the media with a very broad brush. The bias exists on the individual basis -- we all have our own opinions on which way our favorite newscaster, or local paper leans. To counter that requires the public gather information from a wide variety of sources (just as I instruct my reporters) and not a single network, blog, website, or publication.

PS -- Please do not lump the "press" together. Broadcast news is a very different beast than print news (my second generation newspaper roots showing! )
From Wikepedia:
Propaganda is a type of message aimed at influencing the opinions or behavior of people. Often, instead of impartially providing information, propaganda can be deliberately misleading, or using logical fallacies, which, while sometimes convincing, are not necessarily valid.


Problems are much easier to identify/specify than solutions. Do we really want a special interest oriented government mandated alteration of lifestyle or forfeiture of personal choices/freedoms based on a "concensus"? If the US follows Autrailian "solution" to ban incandescent lightbulbs to be replaced with little curly flourescent bulbs and 10, 20, 40, 50, or ??? years would have to lapse before the (favorable/unfavorable) results could be determined........once mandates are in place, it is nearly impossible to remove. Consider the cost, in terms of dollars and quality of life, while contemplating a solution to a contrived CRISIS. Freedom of choice should apply to more than just abortion! This "issue" needs to be validated/substantiated beyond reasonable doubt.

Last edited by Thrifty1; 04-12-07 at 12:35 PM.
Thrifty1 is offline  
Reply