The people over at Blog-a-torium has done it again with this Christmas poem about Digg. Run on over there and take a gander at "The Night Before Diggmas".
'Twas the night before Diggmas, when all through the site,
Not a Digger was stirring, not even MediaSight.
The submittals were posted on Digg with great care,
In hopes that Kevin Rose soon would be there;"
Sunday, November 30, 2008
Tuesday, October 21, 2008
Zombies walk the earth...
... or rather they roam the internet it seems!The very idea of the dead walking the earth eating brains and body parts of the living is a repelling thought to many, and unthinkable to many more... but are the Dead alive and well and using the internet?
It seems that way, to this reporter, even if it's only in the abstract sense of the idea. It seems that the "Dead", also known as 'The Banned", are returning from the afterlife and returning to Digg.
In an article found on LewP's Weblog, "Can banned Digg friends come back to life?", Lew says:
"Now that Digg has banned half of North America, I am proposing a new game for us banned folks with the number 666 tatooed on our foreheads. Just come back as another person. I’m pretty sure this is being done already, but let me be the first to go out on a limb here and make it public."
Ashmadai, a noted blogger of small notoriety (as well as a blogger who seems to relish picking at digg every chance he gets), stated:
"… it is my `considered opinion’(do you like that choice of wording? LoL) that Digg wants the majority of it’s members to come back. Hey, the fact is that they allow people to come back fairly easy - therefore they must want them to come back."
Ashmadai states the case that as an experienced Message Board admin/owner he is well aware of a minimum of 3 ways to ban a member... and it seems that Digg has shown that it knows of two of the ways. In short, since Digg only bans screen names of most of it's Diggers - then Digg must want to leave the option open to these 'Walking Dead" to return to Digg under other names (under certain conditions, of course). It seems Diggers are taking them up on the offer by returning from the "Dead" to roam Digg once more.
Who am I to oppose the powers that be, at least in this case. Many of those banned from Digg were either banned under questionable reasons anyway or they had valid reasons and a mere warning would have sufficed. In any event the warning given of being banned for violating the Digg TOU would have made it's point with the many 'undugg' roaming the net looking for new homes.
It's a win-win situation, really. The Diggers get a second chance, or third, and Digg gets to show it really does stick by it's own rules.
Stay tuned for "Dawn of the Digger" to find out the outcome of this move.
Monday, September 22, 2008
Digg Uproar: What's Going On With Digg?
Over the course of the past few days I've been reading about the shenanigans going on over at Digg and felt it is time to comment upon it, besides it's time I've done another blog post. and this is a handy topic. :)
The whole Digg Uproar thing seemed to begin with an attack on Mr. Babyman and Blind Digging.
It seems that some people were unhappy with Mr. Babyman because the number of items Mr. Babyman had go front page and the fact that Mr. Babyman seemed to not click through and read some of the articles he has dugg. It seemed to escape many that if a person submitted 20 or 30 articles a day, then the odds are that 1 to 3 of the articles will go front page -- providing you are submitting the type of items that you have seen go front page time and again. It also escaped people's notice that the mere fact that Mr. Babyman was the Top Digger, he would gather a cultlike following whether he wanted one or not. This following would be more than happy to digg Mr. Babyman's submittals just to try to gain his notice, one blogger calls this "The Suck-up Factor". :)
The attack on Mr. Babyman seemed to lead quickly into an attack against blind digging in general. The loudest of those voicing their outrage at Blind Digging never seemed to define the term "Blind Digging". In general Blind Digging is the digging of an item with-out looking at the article, but how do we know if someone is actually blind digging? Sure we can say things like "If you digg 89 posts in 3 minutes, you're blind digging... but everyone overlooks the fact of "It depends on what you digg as to whether you have to click through or not". For example:
1. Some items submittted to Digg are single images and when the item is submitted the image is sometimes shown next to the description. Quite often a person can see the reduced image and say "Oh, I have seen that 1,000 times over, there's no need to go look at it again.". So all they have to do is click the Digg button and go onto the next item to digg.
2. Another thing is that many of the items on Digg are news items and we are saturated with the news 24 hours a day from multiple sources. When one sees a headline and description that is often enough to judge whether you need to read the article or say "I've seen this before". Once again, no sense in reinventing the wheel everytime... you simply digg the item because you've seen it already.
3. A third thing is that Top Users and normal Users alike are not careful in what they submit. Quite often you will see the same item posted from different sources. The choice of the Digger is to bury all duplicates and risk making people mad at you or just digg the articles even though they say the same thing. The idea behind Digg is to be social, pissing off your fellow Diggers isn't exactly classified as "Being Social"... so many diggers will simply digg the item and be done with it. This appeases friends and fans on Digg alike and is basically harmless. The point is that there is no need to click through to the item in order to Digg it.
There are many valid reasons why a person does not have to waste the time and resources to click on every single item they digg. Yes I said "Resources", which is something many people don't seem to worry about. The fact is that not everyone has 2 gigs of memory to waste, some people operate on much less and every window being opened affects that memory. Windows has always been a lousy resource manager, it's not so quick to return resources it uses. The end result is that by opening screens unnecessarily, this can (and often does) tie up resources on the person's computer.
This uproar over Babyman and Blind Digging seemed to quiet down for a few days, but never fear - there is always something on Digg to cause unrest. This time it was the fact that familiar "faces" seemed to disappear. It quickly became known that Diggers were being banned, as many as 600 bannings were said to have happened. There is a list of 150 Diggers who were banned on the net The fascinating thing about this list is that it only contains 5 out of the Top 100 Users (about 3.33%), 72 more (about 48%) were ranked from 101 to 1000 on the Social Blade list. This meant that about 48.67% of those being banned by Digg were 'Normal Users". This is an interesting piece of data for it indicates that the normal, everyday digger who is not a part of the Top 1,000 abuse Digg as much as the Top Diggers are said to abuse the system.
At this point let's back things up a little, Zaibatsu posted an article on a blog and said that he was not banned for using scripts. Zaibatsu was banned for posting a link from a Spam Site, so the accusation by Digg states. No one brought forth evidence about Zaibatsu to the contrary. Next we have ZoomTechTV who resigned from Digg, I believe his resignation was in the Grim Reaper Visits Digg blog post. So why were these Diggers banned?
It appears that many of them used scripts, but some used a script that was not designed to Digg or submit. This script was one to keep track of one's Digg Friends, according to Diggboss. So what's the harm in utilizing a script to help one keep track of one's friends on Digg? Don't ask me, ask Digg... they are the ones making the call. As far as I am concerned Digg should have methods to keep better track of one's friends on Digg, afterall it is one's friends who mostly will digg our submittals and isn't that what friends do - they look out for each other?
One of the newest articles on the net goes by the headline of Thinking Like Kevin Rose: What Does The Digg Founder Have in His Mind? This article is written by a man named Manish Pandey and it's a fairly good read. I don't agree with all of Manish's views on the subject, but I respect them and will go a step further... he might actually be right! :) The one issue I disagree over is about Blind Digging. When I was on Digg I have done more blind digging through the Upcoming pages than anywhere else. On the Upcoming Pages all you have to do is click on 15 Digg Badges and move onto the next page... the amount of time to digg a page was about 10 to 15 seconds. Others I've talked to has accomplished this feat in as low as 7 or 8 seconds and there were times that it took a whole 20 -25 seconds to digg a page of 15 items because of the load time to bring up the next page or because of scrolling too far and having to backtrack to catch a missed item. When friends sent their shouts, you had to at least go to the page to get at the digg badge. This usually only had taken up 1 to 3 seconds to load the browser screen and set the page so you could see the digg badge, plus the time to scan the description and title. As you can see, there wasn't a great deal of difference in time, but there was enough loss to make a shout from a friend slower. Quite often the title and description were enough info to tell a person whether they had to go to the actual item or not.
On the other hand, like Manish I have mixed feelings on this. It seems to me that the Digg Fixes are like putting a tire patch on the Hindenberg... i.e not enough to actually fix the problem. The root problem with Digg are those who want to dictate how a digger is to use the site. It doesn't lie in blind digging or the top users monopolizing the front page, it lies with those who are on Digg and trying to control it when they have no legal or moral right to control it. Each Digger should be allowed to handle their accounts as they wish... as long as they are not using scripts or bots to cheat the system. A person should be able to give his or her diggs out as they see fit, there is no requirement on Digg that states you have to love the item you digg... and how could they tell whether you loved it or not anyway?
If Digg felt it was necessary to put 'stops' into their system then that would be fine. Let's say it takes an average person 3 minutes to view a Youtube video, 1 minute to read an average story or news article, and 5 seconds to view a static image. This averages out to about:
180 seconds + 60 Seconds + 5 seconds = 245 seconds/3 = 81.67 seconds (1 Minute, 22 seconds)
There are 86,400 seconds in a day (60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours), this averages out to a person being able to digg approximately 1,057.92 posts per day. Now if Digg simply said the upper limit for the amount of diggs per day were 1,000 diggs, or 42 Diggs/hour... they could be perfectly justified and still give people plenty of diggs per day. Hell with 1,000 friends, that is a potential of 42,000 diggs per hour or 1,000,000 Diggs/day... and how many of us really gets that kind of response? :)
The fact is that if a person is happy digging only 1 post every 3 years, they are free to do so... but if a person wants to digg 1,000 items a day - that also should be their perogative. Signing up to Digg isn't like signing up to the military, it's a damn social site on the internet... let it remain social. For those who are disgruntled because they can't get the diggs they want -- let them find the right friends who will give them the numbers they want. It's absolutely impossible to be friends equally with 5 million other Diggers, when groups are that large then the main group will break up into smaller sub-groups. It's just the way things work. If Digg wants to give everyone an equal chance then perhaps a new formula for Digg needs set up to where the program automatically applies a digg from each member to each member and take the abillity for the freedom of choice out of the equation entirely. The one thing Digg can't do is allow the Digg Mafia and Bury Brigade to dictate policy.
The whole Digg Uproar thing seemed to begin with an attack on Mr. Babyman and Blind Digging.
It seems that some people were unhappy with Mr. Babyman because the number of items Mr. Babyman had go front page and the fact that Mr. Babyman seemed to not click through and read some of the articles he has dugg. It seemed to escape many that if a person submitted 20 or 30 articles a day, then the odds are that 1 to 3 of the articles will go front page -- providing you are submitting the type of items that you have seen go front page time and again. It also escaped people's notice that the mere fact that Mr. Babyman was the Top Digger, he would gather a cultlike following whether he wanted one or not. This following would be more than happy to digg Mr. Babyman's submittals just to try to gain his notice, one blogger calls this "The Suck-up Factor". :)
The attack on Mr. Babyman seemed to lead quickly into an attack against blind digging in general. The loudest of those voicing their outrage at Blind Digging never seemed to define the term "Blind Digging". In general Blind Digging is the digging of an item with-out looking at the article, but how do we know if someone is actually blind digging? Sure we can say things like "If you digg 89 posts in 3 minutes, you're blind digging... but everyone overlooks the fact of "It depends on what you digg as to whether you have to click through or not". For example:
1. Some items submittted to Digg are single images and when the item is submitted the image is sometimes shown next to the description. Quite often a person can see the reduced image and say "Oh, I have seen that 1,000 times over, there's no need to go look at it again.". So all they have to do is click the Digg button and go onto the next item to digg.
2. Another thing is that many of the items on Digg are news items and we are saturated with the news 24 hours a day from multiple sources. When one sees a headline and description that is often enough to judge whether you need to read the article or say "I've seen this before". Once again, no sense in reinventing the wheel everytime... you simply digg the item because you've seen it already.
3. A third thing is that Top Users and normal Users alike are not careful in what they submit. Quite often you will see the same item posted from different sources. The choice of the Digger is to bury all duplicates and risk making people mad at you or just digg the articles even though they say the same thing. The idea behind Digg is to be social, pissing off your fellow Diggers isn't exactly classified as "Being Social"... so many diggers will simply digg the item and be done with it. This appeases friends and fans on Digg alike and is basically harmless. The point is that there is no need to click through to the item in order to Digg it.
There are many valid reasons why a person does not have to waste the time and resources to click on every single item they digg. Yes I said "Resources", which is something many people don't seem to worry about. The fact is that not everyone has 2 gigs of memory to waste, some people operate on much less and every window being opened affects that memory. Windows has always been a lousy resource manager, it's not so quick to return resources it uses. The end result is that by opening screens unnecessarily, this can (and often does) tie up resources on the person's computer.
This uproar over Babyman and Blind Digging seemed to quiet down for a few days, but never fear - there is always something on Digg to cause unrest. This time it was the fact that familiar "faces" seemed to disappear. It quickly became known that Diggers were being banned, as many as 600 bannings were said to have happened. There is a list of 150 Diggers who were banned on the net The fascinating thing about this list is that it only contains 5 out of the Top 100 Users (about 3.33%), 72 more (about 48%) were ranked from 101 to 1000 on the Social Blade list. This meant that about 48.67% of those being banned by Digg were 'Normal Users". This is an interesting piece of data for it indicates that the normal, everyday digger who is not a part of the Top 1,000 abuse Digg as much as the Top Diggers are said to abuse the system.
At this point let's back things up a little, Zaibatsu posted an article on a blog and said that he was not banned for using scripts. Zaibatsu was banned for posting a link from a Spam Site, so the accusation by Digg states. No one brought forth evidence about Zaibatsu to the contrary. Next we have ZoomTechTV who resigned from Digg, I believe his resignation was in the Grim Reaper Visits Digg blog post. So why were these Diggers banned?
It appears that many of them used scripts, but some used a script that was not designed to Digg or submit. This script was one to keep track of one's Digg Friends, according to Diggboss. So what's the harm in utilizing a script to help one keep track of one's friends on Digg? Don't ask me, ask Digg... they are the ones making the call. As far as I am concerned Digg should have methods to keep better track of one's friends on Digg, afterall it is one's friends who mostly will digg our submittals and isn't that what friends do - they look out for each other?
One of the newest articles on the net goes by the headline of Thinking Like Kevin Rose: What Does The Digg Founder Have in His Mind? This article is written by a man named Manish Pandey and it's a fairly good read. I don't agree with all of Manish's views on the subject, but I respect them and will go a step further... he might actually be right! :) The one issue I disagree over is about Blind Digging. When I was on Digg I have done more blind digging through the Upcoming pages than anywhere else. On the Upcoming Pages all you have to do is click on 15 Digg Badges and move onto the next page... the amount of time to digg a page was about 10 to 15 seconds. Others I've talked to has accomplished this feat in as low as 7 or 8 seconds and there were times that it took a whole 20 -25 seconds to digg a page of 15 items because of the load time to bring up the next page or because of scrolling too far and having to backtrack to catch a missed item. When friends sent their shouts, you had to at least go to the page to get at the digg badge. This usually only had taken up 1 to 3 seconds to load the browser screen and set the page so you could see the digg badge, plus the time to scan the description and title. As you can see, there wasn't a great deal of difference in time, but there was enough loss to make a shout from a friend slower. Quite often the title and description were enough info to tell a person whether they had to go to the actual item or not.
On the other hand, like Manish I have mixed feelings on this. It seems to me that the Digg Fixes are like putting a tire patch on the Hindenberg... i.e not enough to actually fix the problem. The root problem with Digg are those who want to dictate how a digger is to use the site. It doesn't lie in blind digging or the top users monopolizing the front page, it lies with those who are on Digg and trying to control it when they have no legal or moral right to control it. Each Digger should be allowed to handle their accounts as they wish... as long as they are not using scripts or bots to cheat the system. A person should be able to give his or her diggs out as they see fit, there is no requirement on Digg that states you have to love the item you digg... and how could they tell whether you loved it or not anyway?
If Digg felt it was necessary to put 'stops' into their system then that would be fine. Let's say it takes an average person 3 minutes to view a Youtube video, 1 minute to read an average story or news article, and 5 seconds to view a static image. This averages out to about:
180 seconds + 60 Seconds + 5 seconds = 245 seconds/3 = 81.67 seconds (1 Minute, 22 seconds)
There are 86,400 seconds in a day (60 seconds x 60 minutes x 24 hours), this averages out to a person being able to digg approximately 1,057.92 posts per day. Now if Digg simply said the upper limit for the amount of diggs per day were 1,000 diggs, or 42 Diggs/hour... they could be perfectly justified and still give people plenty of diggs per day. Hell with 1,000 friends, that is a potential of 42,000 diggs per hour or 1,000,000 Diggs/day... and how many of us really gets that kind of response? :)
The fact is that if a person is happy digging only 1 post every 3 years, they are free to do so... but if a person wants to digg 1,000 items a day - that also should be their perogative. Signing up to Digg isn't like signing up to the military, it's a damn social site on the internet... let it remain social. For those who are disgruntled because they can't get the diggs they want -- let them find the right friends who will give them the numbers they want. It's absolutely impossible to be friends equally with 5 million other Diggers, when groups are that large then the main group will break up into smaller sub-groups. It's just the way things work. If Digg wants to give everyone an equal chance then perhaps a new formula for Digg needs set up to where the program automatically applies a digg from each member to each member and take the abillity for the freedom of choice out of the equation entirely. The one thing Digg can't do is allow the Digg Mafia and Bury Brigade to dictate policy.
Sunday, September 14, 2008
Another Digg Uproar
It is reported by the article entitled "Digg Uproar: Attack on Mr. Babyman and Blind Digging", on Ashmadai's Blog, some members of Digg raised the roof last week over one of the Digg Top Users known as Mr. Babyman. It seems some members of Digg were disgruntled over the fact that Mr. Babyman achieved great success on Digg and the allegations flew around about how he gained his status and kept it for over a year like finger nail's at a bar room cat fight. The accusations were so intense that Mr. Babyman felt compelled to conduct an interview to explain a few things, of course this really resolved nothing in the long run. The major complaints of Babyman using scripts and blind digging remained with some of those in attendence and it seemed to fuel their agendas.
One of the things I've seen happening in the past week or two over at Digg is not really dealing with the subject of Blind Digging or Mr. Babyman, these two topics are only the tip of the ice berg. If these bully groups get their way, then they will target new people and new things. I've seen this happen many times on the net, people who have no power often get drunk with it when they find out they can manipulate people and events.
There is a poem that I've always liked, which fits this occassion. I am sure most of you have heard it before, but I will repeat it here:
insure that if this information was correct. I don't think it really matters. What matters is the thoughts being conveyed.
Mr. Babyman is under attack and many allegations are made about him, none of the allegations come along with hard fact to prove the claims. The detractors of Mr. Babyman state their case as if they have enough proof to crucify the man, expecting others on Digg to drop into line like good little sheeple. Along with this comes the pleadings of some to ban Mr. Babyman because of baseless accusations. In the old days they would say a person in Mr. Babyman's position was being "Railroaded". On the heels of the Mr. Babyman upheavel comes the agenda guided people who want to alter Digg's Rules and Policies to suit themselves. To those who have seen this done many times over in other forums, it is easy to see the drive for some to manipulate Digg and it's staff.
If these people get their way with Mr. Babyman, then who's next and where will it stop? The members of Digg need to be made to realize that their input and opinions are important, but that does not mean that just because they say something that Digg will do as they say. Digg controls Digg and they are gracious enough to say, at least, that there is a democratic process that is involved with their site. The baseline is that it is Digg who will catch the heat from the state or feds if something happens on their site that draws attention and those at Digg have to protect that, so the illusion of Digg being Democratic has it's limitations -- and this is one of them. Digg has to maintain the reins of control and not allow it to slip to special interest groups.
One of the things I've seen happening in the past week or two over at Digg is not really dealing with the subject of Blind Digging or Mr. Babyman, these two topics are only the tip of the ice berg. If these bully groups get their way, then they will target new people and new things. I've seen this happen many times on the net, people who have no power often get drunk with it when they find out they can manipulate people and events.
There is a poem that I've always liked, which fits this occassion. I am sure most of you have heard it before, but I will repeat it here:
First they came for the Communists,This was said to be written by the Reverand Martin Niemoller in 1945, I never checked to
and I didn’t speak upbecause I wasn’t a Communist.
Then they came for the Jews,
and I didn’t speak up because I wasn’t a Jew.
Then they came for the Catholics,
and I didn’t speak up because I was a Protestant.
Then they came for me,
and by that time there was no one left to speak up for me.
insure that if this information was correct. I don't think it really matters. What matters is the thoughts being conveyed.
Mr. Babyman is under attack and many allegations are made about him, none of the allegations come along with hard fact to prove the claims. The detractors of Mr. Babyman state their case as if they have enough proof to crucify the man, expecting others on Digg to drop into line like good little sheeple. Along with this comes the pleadings of some to ban Mr. Babyman because of baseless accusations. In the old days they would say a person in Mr. Babyman's position was being "Railroaded". On the heels of the Mr. Babyman upheavel comes the agenda guided people who want to alter Digg's Rules and Policies to suit themselves. To those who have seen this done many times over in other forums, it is easy to see the drive for some to manipulate Digg and it's staff.
If these people get their way with Mr. Babyman, then who's next and where will it stop? The members of Digg need to be made to realize that their input and opinions are important, but that does not mean that just because they say something that Digg will do as they say. Digg controls Digg and they are gracious enough to say, at least, that there is a democratic process that is involved with their site. The baseline is that it is Digg who will catch the heat from the state or feds if something happens on their site that draws attention and those at Digg have to protect that, so the illusion of Digg being Democratic has it's limitations -- and this is one of them. Digg has to maintain the reins of control and not allow it to slip to special interest groups.
Friday, July 18, 2008
Google-Digg Merge New Format Chosen
Google McDigg Born
San Francisco - Today a new corporation was born when Digg was sold to Google at 11:45 AM. Sources report that the company was sold for $1 plus other considerations, but our sources would not hint at what the other considerations were.
Google McDigg standing in front of new sign The formal announcement was made by the
famed comedian/actress Ellen DeGeneris. "We wanted someone famous, but our first choice of George Carlin was unavaible and Robin Williams declined.", stated the spokesman. Sources close to Kevin Rose said that Bill Cosby was asked to make the formal announcement, but our phone call to the world's most famous father received the reply "Mr. Cosby was never asked to make the announcement, besides he doesn't need the money that bad."
The Google spokesman made the announcement that the new company name for Digg will be McDigg. "It's a harmless steal from McDonald's restaurants," said the spokesman, "but they don't mind - they can use all the free advertising they can get now-a-days." The spokesman went on to say that the new logo of McDigg will be none other than Kevin Rose as Google McDigg. "We most likely could have gotten Erin Moran, ex-Happy Days star, or Stephen Erkel to do the new logo... but they both wanted too much money." It is now rumored that secret dealings are underway with Coors and Budweiser to use the McDigg poster child in their ads.
Thursday, June 12, 2008
How To Get More Diggs
Today I ran across another How To Get More Diggs article, and found it interesting enough to post an article concerning this blog post. The article tells of the author's attempts to succeed through social book marking sites ends with the author's short testimonial of listening to Chris Lang and then advisinge to buy his book. Take a look at this site and check out the other blogs.
Sunday, August 19, 2007
The Media
What is the Mass Media?
Mass media is a term used to denote a section of the media specifically envisioned and designed to reach a very large audiences, such as the population of a nation state. It is sometimes referred to as “The Media”, the “Broadcast Media” or even the “Corporate Media”.
Many of those who post on the various message forums and blogs have a tendency to refer to the electronic media (ABC, Fox News, CNN, CBS MSNBC, et al.) as the “Mass Media”, “Mainstream Media” or simply the “MSM“. However, we also find that some sites on the internet fall under the header or the “Mass Media” or “MSM”. In addition to the electronic news agencies we find that many magazines, newspapers and other forms of media are included in the term.
Purposes for the Mass Media
The Media was originally intended to inform the general public about news and information, which would be of interest to the people. The newspapers would not only cover local issues and events, but they would cover items which were more of a regional or national interest. The media now, and most probably always, had a variety of purposes, which can be broken down into 5 main groups:
Advocacy: Advocacy is the act of arguing on behalf of a particular issue, idea or person. Individuals, organizations, businesses, and governments can engage in advocacy. It can include advertising, marketing, propaganda, public relations, political communication and social justice.
Enrichment and Education: Education means 'to draw out', facilitating realization of self-potential and latent talents of an individual.
Entertainment: Entertainment is an event, performance, or activity designed to give pleasure or relaxation to an audience. This includes, but is not limited to, sports, music, plays, opera, movies, sitcoms, and even computer games. The audience may participate in the entertainment passively or actively.
Journalism: Journalism is a discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news, news, and more broadly it includes the process of editing and presenting the news articles. Journalism applies to various media, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, radio and television.
Public Service Announcements: Public Service Announcements, or Community Service Announcements, are non-commercial advertisements typically on radio or television, ostensibly broadcast for the public good. The main concept is to modify public attitudes by raising awareness about specific issues.
The Effects of the Mass Media.
The effects of mass media exposure, as indicated by decades of studies, are varied and reciprocal. It is found that not only does the media impact it’s audiences, but also that the audiences impact the media by the intensity and frequency that it is used. In other words, those involved in the Mass Media give the people what they want and this is judged by “ratings” and the amount of publications sold. For example, if no one cared a fig about Paris Hilton, then those in the media would not provide us much news and information, if any, about her.
J. R. Finnegan Jr. and K. Viswanath (1997) has identified three effects, or functions, of media, they are the knowledge gap, agenda setting, and cultivation of shared public perceptions.
The Knowledge Gap. Health knowledge is differentially distributed in the population, resulting in knowledge gaps. Unfortunately, mass media are insufficient for distributing information in an egalitarian fashion—changes in social structure and institutions are also necessary for this to occur. Thus, the impact of mass media on audience knowledge gaps is influenced by such factors as the extent to which the content is appealing, the degree to which information channels are accessible and desirable, and the amount of social conflict and diversity there is in a community. Hence, public health media campaigns are more effective when structural factors that impede the distribution of knowledge are addressed.
Agenda Setting. The selective nature of what members of the media choose for public consumption influences how people think about health issues, and what they think about them. When Rudolph Giuliani, the mayor of New York City, publicly disclosed he had prostate cancer prior to the 2000 New York senatorial election, many news media reported the risks of prostate cancer, prompting greater public awareness about the incidence of the disease and the need for screening. A similar episode occurred in the mid-1970s when Betty Ford, wife of President Gerald R. Ford, and Happy Rockefeller, wife of Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, were both diagnosed with breast cancer.
A related theme is the extent to which the media set the public's perception of health risks. According to J. J. Davis, when risks are highlighted in the media, particularly in great detail, the extent of agenda setting is likely to be based on the degree to which a public sense of outrage and threat is provoked. Where mass media can be especially valuable is in the framing of issues. "Framing" means taking a leadership role in the organization of public discourse about an issue. Media, of course, are influenced by pressures to offer balance in coverage, and these pressures may come from persons and groups with particular political action and advocacy positions. According to Finnegan and Viswanath, "groups, institutions, and advocates compete to identify problems, to move them onto the public agenda, and to define the issues symbolically" (1997, p. 324). Thus, persons who desire to access mass media's agenda-setting potential must be aware of the competition.
Cultivation of Perceptions. Cultivation is the extent to which media exposure, over time, shapes audience perceptions. Television is a common experience, especially in the United States, and it serves as what S. W. Littlejohn calls a "homogenizing agent." However, the effect is often based on several conditions, particularly socioeconomic factors. Prolonged exposure to TV or movie violence may affect the extent to which people think community violence is a problem, though that belief is likely moderated by where they live. However, the actual determinants of people's impressions of violence are complex, and consensus in this area is lacking.
Perceived Inherent Negative Characteristics of the Media.
The “Central Media” is another term used in connection with the “Mass Media”. The Central Media is when the same identical stories emanate from a central point to numerous recipients. It is claimed this forces certain inherent limitations on the information which we are told, such as an inability to transmit tacit knowledge, that is “knowledge which people carry around in their minds and is difficult to access” (or perhaps it can only transfer bad tacit knowledge as opposed to good). A focus on the unusual and sensational rather than a restatement of wisdom, the promotion of anxiety and fear to sell the newspaper/channel, etc. inability to deal with complex issues so a need to simplify.
This view of central media can be contrasted with the “Lateral Media“, such as emails networks, where messages are all slightly different and spread by a process of “Lateral Diffusion“. Lateral diffusion is basically the “knowledge that people carry in their minds and is, therefore, difficult to access”.
What is the Main Stream Media?
"MSM" or "Main Stream Media" is a term used frequently by bloggers, and media critics in general, in discussions concerning the mass media and media bias. It’s used to mean the “corporate media” and includes outlets that are in harmony with the prevailing direction of influence in the culture at large. Most often the MSM is applied to news or information in order to give some sense of “unfairness” or an evil overtone.
In the United States, usage of these terms often depend upon the connotations which the speaker wishes to invoke. For example, the leftists use it to imply that the MSM consists of large multinational corporations, or are controlled by elements of the right, and promotes their interests. Meanwhile the right wing claim that the majority of the mass media sources are dominated, or controlled entirely, by far left wing radical elements who use the MSM to further their agenda. Over half of all Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people. .
Error in Media Reporting
The first observation to note is the obvious concerning the “Errors” which we often can find in media reporting. In the past there have been many instances where people of all walks of life have noticed and commented upon “errors” which they found in news reports they read or heard. The reasons these errors have been spotted are due to a wide variety of reasons, such as someone being involved in the situation, or event, in some way and they noticed the reporters didn‘t report the news accurately for some reason. For example, an auto accident occurred and the person was a passenger in the car which was involved. The media reports that the cause of the accident seemed to be due to the driver being on the cell phone and the person knew the driver was not on the cell phone before or during the accident.
Another way which the information given was in error is known may be due to the story dealing with the subject matter being discussed in the news story. For example, a news story being reported has to deal with a traffic study causing a road closure. The viewer, or reader, works in the field and has done many traffic studies. He or she knows that one cannot do a traffic study on a closed road, in order to perform a traffic study… the traffic must be flowing. The person may not know why the road closed, as reported, but does know that it was not due to the reason given by the reporter..
A third possible way to know the original story was in error comes from listening to follow up stories and seeing the story change from report to report. For example, a news bulletin interrupts the regular 4 PM programming and states that a plane is being held in a landing pattern because someone noticed “tire damage” on the landing gear and another plane was sent to check it out. A report 5 minutes later says the damage is to the landing gear itself and another plane is on it’s way to check out the situation. The very next report heard says there is damage to the wing and a plane is being checking out the damage. It is obvious that the media is clueless as to what is actually going on but are simply reporting rumors or what they think might be wrong.
The reasons for why a news story, given in error, was noticed truly doesn’t matter a great deal, what does matter is that we are aware the media doesn’t always get the story right for whatever the reason… especially in the initial reports. .
Why the Media doesn’t get it right?
There are many reasons why the media gets the story wrong, or doesn’t tell the full story properly. The following are just a few possible reasons:
Time and Space restrictions
News Articles generally have to fit into a certain amount of space allotted for the story, or a certain amount of time. The guiding factor could be how many words or the reporter given only 20 seconds to a minute get the story told. In order to fit a complex story into the amount of time or space allowed, the information given is condensed or left out completely.. When editing an article, especially when it is done by someone other than the original reporter, mistakes can be made which alters the article due to the lack of knowledge on the subject.
Sensationalism over Fact Reporting
Much of the news today seems to concern itself more with sensationalism rather than reporting the facts. Over the past decade or two several respected news reporters have came out with comments concerning the standards of news reporting in today‘s media. One notable journalist, either Cronkite or Rather, made a comment which amounted to “…in their (the journalist speaking) day they needed a minimum of 3 sources of which 2 had to be unimpeachable, then that changed to the requirement of only 1 source which was unimpeachable. Today the journalists don’t even require one solid source“. When the reporter doesn’t have to get his, or her, facts right by the use of several valid sources, sensationalism arises because the news is reduced to the “he said/she said” reporting. .
The “News First” Phenomena
Today we are saturated with the “News First” style of news reporting where the importance is getting the story out first, regardless of what the reporters find out. The objective is not so much as to keep ‘the people“ informed, as it is to boost ratings for that particular news channel.
A media outlet hears of a situation going on and deploys their reporters out to get the story. The reporters get on the scene and the news crew performs whatever set up that is required, then immediately goes on the air. The reporter often talks to a few people, gets the gist of what is going on, and begins reporting the “news”. The facts, which we are often given, are mostly rumors and conjectures at this point… yet the news reports this as if it was ‘real news”. Worse, most of those listening hear what is going on and are still confused over the situation. All of this doesn’t matter, where the news organization is concerned, because they can say the story is “developing” and correct whatever errors they tell us later. Meanwhile the information conveyed can have various effects on the listeners, such as a mother becoming needlessly worried about her son because he could have been in that area at the time and she hasn’t heard from him.
The whole idea is that it’s more important that the station gets the story out, instead of getting the story out right. Quite often the media would do the public a better service if they wait awhile before giving in depth reports and only dole out the information required in the early reports.
Where printed media is concerned, it’s a similar idea. Instead of taking the time to find out if the allegations are fact or fiction, they rush to meet deadlines and tell us faulty news… often filled with opinion. This is called “News”, however, and to do anything to impede it in any way would bring screams of “the people having the right to know“ and “that is a violation of the first amendment“. It doesn‘t matter if logic and reason apply to the situation, what matters is ratings and sales. No one in the media ever seems to think things like “What does it matter if we hold this story for half an hour until the evening news comes on?”.
Agenda Setting
As much as we may not like to think it, the various news agencies are controlled by people, or groups, who have definite views about the ecology, politics, religion, etc.. Fox News, for example, definitely has a more conservative slant; while MSNBC has a definite liberal slant. These beliefs are often reflected in the way those working for these organizations report the news… or are allowed to report the news. On the other hand, in order to be fair to some news organizations, reporters and commentators are hired by the company due to their beliefs in order to help give us a more rounded opinion of current events. If you look at most news organizations, you will see they hire conservatives, as well as liberals… even if one set of beliefs are outweighed by the other. PBS is especially good at presenting more than one view.
The point for consideration is that it’s not always those who run the news organization who guide and manipulate the news, sometimes it’s those who work for the company. For example, over the past 4 years we have seen several of the “giants“ come under fire because their reporters, photographers, or some other employee manipulated the facts in order to support a particular agenda. When it was found out that the facts used for the story were wrong, or slanted, the old “Newsroom Two-step“ ensued and a variety of reasons were given to try to excuse the news organization, or reporter, from their responsibility.
Whenever the news we are given is not presented in a fair and just manner, it furthers someone’s agenda. The media loves to promote the idea that they are their “for the people” or “for truth and justice”, however we find that mainly the news is their for the news. Whether they are mainly their to promote an agenda or because the information they give is simply due to sloppy work, the facts remain that the media is more concerned with their own self-image than they are there for what is best ‘for the people’.
Honesty in Reporting:
One of the things I notice is that people tend to believe media sources which has the tendency to agree with their opinions. For example, Jim Smith likes Fox News because they tend to give pro-conservative views, while Annie Bailey loves MSNBC because they are heavy in attacking the conservative viewpoint. On the other hand Jackson Willoughby likes ABC because the facts most often given when it comes to the military are facts he knows to be true… and let’s not leave out Shel Silverstein who loves HonestReporting.com because it exposes the lies and errors given by the mainstream media.
The fact is that all media outlets, including internet sites and blogs, are prone to error and even personal opinions. Sometimes those views are similar to ours, sometimes they aren’t. Another thing to remember is that facts can be manipulated to give the appearance of truth. All news reports should be taken at face value with the knowledge that even the best of them sometimes makes mistakes.
Belief in the idea that Blogs are real news
It astounds me the number of people on the net who speak with great authority on subjects which they have very little first hand knowledge, then supports their views with mostly blog sites. Some people are so disenchanted with the MSM that they seem to put forth the idea that only bloggers will give us the real story.
The fact is that many bloggers primarily get their information from the same sources the rest of us get our news. They get their stories from the AP, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Various Newspapers, Talk Shows, Propaganda Films, and even internet sites. They then, often, write their blogs with their own set of opinions.
The truth is that some bloggers do have personal experience and knowledge which they can fall back when formulating their opinions, but most do not. Many bloggers are merely restating what others say, while adding their own twist. Some don’t even twist, they just rewrite things they have read. The only difference between most bloggers and you is that they are writing blogs and you are not. That doesn’t make them any more knowledgable than you. Anyone can be an editorialist, all you have to do is write your opinion, but to be a good one you need to use facts to back up what you say.
Believing the propagandists over the Media
The MSM has a bad reputation and in some cases it’s probably deserved, however we should strive to remember that these people are in the business of reporting the news and they are not only formally educated in the field of journalism… but many have years of experience in the field and they know it‘s ins and outs.
Every reporter has two options, or paths to follow. The first is presenting him, or her, self in such a way that he/she is considered to be a top notched, serious news journalist. To do this they have to present the image to the public of being a dedicated, well-informed news person who strives for accuracy in their reporting. The second path is followed when the reporter presents him, or her, self to be a “Fluff Reporter”. This is accomplished when the reporter is nailed too many times of presenting inaccurate information and/or is best noted for sensationalistic reports and basically “garbage news“.. The fact that a reporter may attract thousands of faithful followers in no way shows the reporter as being a serious news journalist.
Geraldo Rivera, for example, was taken as a ‘garbage news’ reporter for many years because of the sensationalistic stories he presented… however when he was given the chance of being a serious journalist, he actually did very well (even though he made a mistake or two which cost him where his reputation was concerned). The man did show the talent to be a good news reporter.
Summary
There is no denying that much of the media is using it’s position to shamelessly promote the views and agendas of those in it to dictate how they tell a news story, and which stories they report. We also shouldn’t deny to ourselves that sometimes the media is actually doing it’s job, with in respectable tolerances, but it’s getting a bad rap by viewers, listeners and readers who simply have opposing agenda’s and views. As one who is analyzing the news, we should strive to realize that just because someone says something we agree with does not mean they are reporting the information in a fair, just and truthful manner. The same goes for those in the media with whom we disagree.
We must realize that just because a reporter sits in the White House press room on a daily basis does not mean that he or she knows more about what is going on than we do. Reporters get their information from “sources” but even those sources do not always tell those in the media the full story, or the correct one. The reporter has to judge what information he or she hears and try to find out whether the facts given were correct. When a reporter fails to find out that the information is truthful and accurate, then reports it as fact, he or she is guilty of not upholding their promise of honest reporting.
Sources:
Wikipedia: Mass Media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media
Answers.com: Mass Medium
http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-media?cat=biz-fin
Mass media is a term used to denote a section of the media specifically envisioned and designed to reach a very large audiences, such as the population of a nation state. It is sometimes referred to as “The Media”, the “Broadcast Media” or even the “Corporate Media”.
Many of those who post on the various message forums and blogs have a tendency to refer to the electronic media (ABC, Fox News, CNN, CBS MSNBC, et al.) as the “Mass Media”, “Mainstream Media” or simply the “MSM“. However, we also find that some sites on the internet fall under the header or the “Mass Media” or “MSM”. In addition to the electronic news agencies we find that many magazines, newspapers and other forms of media are included in the term.
Purposes for the Mass Media
The Media was originally intended to inform the general public about news and information, which would be of interest to the people. The newspapers would not only cover local issues and events, but they would cover items which were more of a regional or national interest. The media now, and most probably always, had a variety of purposes, which can be broken down into 5 main groups:
Advocacy: Advocacy is the act of arguing on behalf of a particular issue, idea or person. Individuals, organizations, businesses, and governments can engage in advocacy. It can include advertising, marketing, propaganda, public relations, political communication and social justice.
Enrichment and Education: Education means 'to draw out', facilitating realization of self-potential and latent talents of an individual.
Entertainment: Entertainment is an event, performance, or activity designed to give pleasure or relaxation to an audience. This includes, but is not limited to, sports, music, plays, opera, movies, sitcoms, and even computer games. The audience may participate in the entertainment passively or actively.
Journalism: Journalism is a discipline of gathering, writing and reporting news, news, and more broadly it includes the process of editing and presenting the news articles. Journalism applies to various media, including but not limited to newspapers, magazines, radio and television.
Public Service Announcements: Public Service Announcements, or Community Service Announcements, are non-commercial advertisements typically on radio or television, ostensibly broadcast for the public good. The main concept is to modify public attitudes by raising awareness about specific issues.
The Effects of the Mass Media.
The effects of mass media exposure, as indicated by decades of studies, are varied and reciprocal. It is found that not only does the media impact it’s audiences, but also that the audiences impact the media by the intensity and frequency that it is used. In other words, those involved in the Mass Media give the people what they want and this is judged by “ratings” and the amount of publications sold. For example, if no one cared a fig about Paris Hilton, then those in the media would not provide us much news and information, if any, about her.
J. R. Finnegan Jr. and K. Viswanath (1997) has identified three effects, or functions, of media, they are the knowledge gap, agenda setting, and cultivation of shared public perceptions.
The Knowledge Gap. Health knowledge is differentially distributed in the population, resulting in knowledge gaps. Unfortunately, mass media are insufficient for distributing information in an egalitarian fashion—changes in social structure and institutions are also necessary for this to occur. Thus, the impact of mass media on audience knowledge gaps is influenced by such factors as the extent to which the content is appealing, the degree to which information channels are accessible and desirable, and the amount of social conflict and diversity there is in a community. Hence, public health media campaigns are more effective when structural factors that impede the distribution of knowledge are addressed.
Agenda Setting. The selective nature of what members of the media choose for public consumption influences how people think about health issues, and what they think about them. When Rudolph Giuliani, the mayor of New York City, publicly disclosed he had prostate cancer prior to the 2000 New York senatorial election, many news media reported the risks of prostate cancer, prompting greater public awareness about the incidence of the disease and the need for screening. A similar episode occurred in the mid-1970s when Betty Ford, wife of President Gerald R. Ford, and Happy Rockefeller, wife of Vice President Nelson Rockefeller, were both diagnosed with breast cancer.
A related theme is the extent to which the media set the public's perception of health risks. According to J. J. Davis, when risks are highlighted in the media, particularly in great detail, the extent of agenda setting is likely to be based on the degree to which a public sense of outrage and threat is provoked. Where mass media can be especially valuable is in the framing of issues. "Framing" means taking a leadership role in the organization of public discourse about an issue. Media, of course, are influenced by pressures to offer balance in coverage, and these pressures may come from persons and groups with particular political action and advocacy positions. According to Finnegan and Viswanath, "groups, institutions, and advocates compete to identify problems, to move them onto the public agenda, and to define the issues symbolically" (1997, p. 324). Thus, persons who desire to access mass media's agenda-setting potential must be aware of the competition.
Cultivation of Perceptions. Cultivation is the extent to which media exposure, over time, shapes audience perceptions. Television is a common experience, especially in the United States, and it serves as what S. W. Littlejohn calls a "homogenizing agent." However, the effect is often based on several conditions, particularly socioeconomic factors. Prolonged exposure to TV or movie violence may affect the extent to which people think community violence is a problem, though that belief is likely moderated by where they live. However, the actual determinants of people's impressions of violence are complex, and consensus in this area is lacking.
Perceived Inherent Negative Characteristics of the Media.
The “Central Media” is another term used in connection with the “Mass Media”. The Central Media is when the same identical stories emanate from a central point to numerous recipients. It is claimed this forces certain inherent limitations on the information which we are told, such as an inability to transmit tacit knowledge, that is “knowledge which people carry around in their minds and is difficult to access” (or perhaps it can only transfer bad tacit knowledge as opposed to good). A focus on the unusual and sensational rather than a restatement of wisdom, the promotion of anxiety and fear to sell the newspaper/channel, etc. inability to deal with complex issues so a need to simplify.
This view of central media can be contrasted with the “Lateral Media“, such as emails networks, where messages are all slightly different and spread by a process of “Lateral Diffusion“. Lateral diffusion is basically the “knowledge that people carry in their minds and is, therefore, difficult to access”.
What is the Main Stream Media?
"MSM" or "Main Stream Media" is a term used frequently by bloggers, and media critics in general, in discussions concerning the mass media and media bias. It’s used to mean the “corporate media” and includes outlets that are in harmony with the prevailing direction of influence in the culture at large. Most often the MSM is applied to news or information in order to give some sense of “unfairness” or an evil overtone.
In the United States, usage of these terms often depend upon the connotations which the speaker wishes to invoke. For example, the leftists use it to imply that the MSM consists of large multinational corporations, or are controlled by elements of the right, and promotes their interests. Meanwhile the right wing claim that the majority of the mass media sources are dominated, or controlled entirely, by far left wing radical elements who use the MSM to further their agenda. Over half of all Americans say US news organizations are politically biased, inaccurate, and don't care about the people. .
Error in Media Reporting
The first observation to note is the obvious concerning the “Errors” which we often can find in media reporting. In the past there have been many instances where people of all walks of life have noticed and commented upon “errors” which they found in news reports they read or heard. The reasons these errors have been spotted are due to a wide variety of reasons, such as someone being involved in the situation, or event, in some way and they noticed the reporters didn‘t report the news accurately for some reason. For example, an auto accident occurred and the person was a passenger in the car which was involved. The media reports that the cause of the accident seemed to be due to the driver being on the cell phone and the person knew the driver was not on the cell phone before or during the accident.
Another way which the information given was in error is known may be due to the story dealing with the subject matter being discussed in the news story. For example, a news story being reported has to deal with a traffic study causing a road closure. The viewer, or reader, works in the field and has done many traffic studies. He or she knows that one cannot do a traffic study on a closed road, in order to perform a traffic study… the traffic must be flowing. The person may not know why the road closed, as reported, but does know that it was not due to the reason given by the reporter..
A third possible way to know the original story was in error comes from listening to follow up stories and seeing the story change from report to report. For example, a news bulletin interrupts the regular 4 PM programming and states that a plane is being held in a landing pattern because someone noticed “tire damage” on the landing gear and another plane was sent to check it out. A report 5 minutes later says the damage is to the landing gear itself and another plane is on it’s way to check out the situation. The very next report heard says there is damage to the wing and a plane is being checking out the damage. It is obvious that the media is clueless as to what is actually going on but are simply reporting rumors or what they think might be wrong.
The reasons for why a news story, given in error, was noticed truly doesn’t matter a great deal, what does matter is that we are aware the media doesn’t always get the story right for whatever the reason… especially in the initial reports. .
Why the Media doesn’t get it right?
There are many reasons why the media gets the story wrong, or doesn’t tell the full story properly. The following are just a few possible reasons:
Time and Space restrictions
News Articles generally have to fit into a certain amount of space allotted for the story, or a certain amount of time. The guiding factor could be how many words or the reporter given only 20 seconds to a minute get the story told. In order to fit a complex story into the amount of time or space allowed, the information given is condensed or left out completely.. When editing an article, especially when it is done by someone other than the original reporter, mistakes can be made which alters the article due to the lack of knowledge on the subject.
Sensationalism over Fact Reporting
Much of the news today seems to concern itself more with sensationalism rather than reporting the facts. Over the past decade or two several respected news reporters have came out with comments concerning the standards of news reporting in today‘s media. One notable journalist, either Cronkite or Rather, made a comment which amounted to “…in their (the journalist speaking) day they needed a minimum of 3 sources of which 2 had to be unimpeachable, then that changed to the requirement of only 1 source which was unimpeachable. Today the journalists don’t even require one solid source“. When the reporter doesn’t have to get his, or her, facts right by the use of several valid sources, sensationalism arises because the news is reduced to the “he said/she said” reporting. .
The “News First” Phenomena
Today we are saturated with the “News First” style of news reporting where the importance is getting the story out first, regardless of what the reporters find out. The objective is not so much as to keep ‘the people“ informed, as it is to boost ratings for that particular news channel.
A media outlet hears of a situation going on and deploys their reporters out to get the story. The reporters get on the scene and the news crew performs whatever set up that is required, then immediately goes on the air. The reporter often talks to a few people, gets the gist of what is going on, and begins reporting the “news”. The facts, which we are often given, are mostly rumors and conjectures at this point… yet the news reports this as if it was ‘real news”. Worse, most of those listening hear what is going on and are still confused over the situation. All of this doesn’t matter, where the news organization is concerned, because they can say the story is “developing” and correct whatever errors they tell us later. Meanwhile the information conveyed can have various effects on the listeners, such as a mother becoming needlessly worried about her son because he could have been in that area at the time and she hasn’t heard from him.
The whole idea is that it’s more important that the station gets the story out, instead of getting the story out right. Quite often the media would do the public a better service if they wait awhile before giving in depth reports and only dole out the information required in the early reports.
Where printed media is concerned, it’s a similar idea. Instead of taking the time to find out if the allegations are fact or fiction, they rush to meet deadlines and tell us faulty news… often filled with opinion. This is called “News”, however, and to do anything to impede it in any way would bring screams of “the people having the right to know“ and “that is a violation of the first amendment“. It doesn‘t matter if logic and reason apply to the situation, what matters is ratings and sales. No one in the media ever seems to think things like “What does it matter if we hold this story for half an hour until the evening news comes on?”.
Agenda Setting
As much as we may not like to think it, the various news agencies are controlled by people, or groups, who have definite views about the ecology, politics, religion, etc.. Fox News, for example, definitely has a more conservative slant; while MSNBC has a definite liberal slant. These beliefs are often reflected in the way those working for these organizations report the news… or are allowed to report the news. On the other hand, in order to be fair to some news organizations, reporters and commentators are hired by the company due to their beliefs in order to help give us a more rounded opinion of current events. If you look at most news organizations, you will see they hire conservatives, as well as liberals… even if one set of beliefs are outweighed by the other. PBS is especially good at presenting more than one view.
The point for consideration is that it’s not always those who run the news organization who guide and manipulate the news, sometimes it’s those who work for the company. For example, over the past 4 years we have seen several of the “giants“ come under fire because their reporters, photographers, or some other employee manipulated the facts in order to support a particular agenda. When it was found out that the facts used for the story were wrong, or slanted, the old “Newsroom Two-step“ ensued and a variety of reasons were given to try to excuse the news organization, or reporter, from their responsibility.
Whenever the news we are given is not presented in a fair and just manner, it furthers someone’s agenda. The media loves to promote the idea that they are their “for the people” or “for truth and justice”, however we find that mainly the news is their for the news. Whether they are mainly their to promote an agenda or because the information they give is simply due to sloppy work, the facts remain that the media is more concerned with their own self-image than they are there for what is best ‘for the people’.
Honesty in Reporting:
One of the things I notice is that people tend to believe media sources which has the tendency to agree with their opinions. For example, Jim Smith likes Fox News because they tend to give pro-conservative views, while Annie Bailey loves MSNBC because they are heavy in attacking the conservative viewpoint. On the other hand Jackson Willoughby likes ABC because the facts most often given when it comes to the military are facts he knows to be true… and let’s not leave out Shel Silverstein who loves HonestReporting.com because it exposes the lies and errors given by the mainstream media.
The fact is that all media outlets, including internet sites and blogs, are prone to error and even personal opinions. Sometimes those views are similar to ours, sometimes they aren’t. Another thing to remember is that facts can be manipulated to give the appearance of truth. All news reports should be taken at face value with the knowledge that even the best of them sometimes makes mistakes.
Belief in the idea that Blogs are real news
It astounds me the number of people on the net who speak with great authority on subjects which they have very little first hand knowledge, then supports their views with mostly blog sites. Some people are so disenchanted with the MSM that they seem to put forth the idea that only bloggers will give us the real story.
The fact is that many bloggers primarily get their information from the same sources the rest of us get our news. They get their stories from the AP, CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, Various Newspapers, Talk Shows, Propaganda Films, and even internet sites. They then, often, write their blogs with their own set of opinions.
The truth is that some bloggers do have personal experience and knowledge which they can fall back when formulating their opinions, but most do not. Many bloggers are merely restating what others say, while adding their own twist. Some don’t even twist, they just rewrite things they have read. The only difference between most bloggers and you is that they are writing blogs and you are not. That doesn’t make them any more knowledgable than you. Anyone can be an editorialist, all you have to do is write your opinion, but to be a good one you need to use facts to back up what you say.
Believing the propagandists over the Media
The MSM has a bad reputation and in some cases it’s probably deserved, however we should strive to remember that these people are in the business of reporting the news and they are not only formally educated in the field of journalism… but many have years of experience in the field and they know it‘s ins and outs.
Every reporter has two options, or paths to follow. The first is presenting him, or her, self in such a way that he/she is considered to be a top notched, serious news journalist. To do this they have to present the image to the public of being a dedicated, well-informed news person who strives for accuracy in their reporting. The second path is followed when the reporter presents him, or her, self to be a “Fluff Reporter”. This is accomplished when the reporter is nailed too many times of presenting inaccurate information and/or is best noted for sensationalistic reports and basically “garbage news“.. The fact that a reporter may attract thousands of faithful followers in no way shows the reporter as being a serious news journalist.
Geraldo Rivera, for example, was taken as a ‘garbage news’ reporter for many years because of the sensationalistic stories he presented… however when he was given the chance of being a serious journalist, he actually did very well (even though he made a mistake or two which cost him where his reputation was concerned). The man did show the talent to be a good news reporter.
Summary
There is no denying that much of the media is using it’s position to shamelessly promote the views and agendas of those in it to dictate how they tell a news story, and which stories they report. We also shouldn’t deny to ourselves that sometimes the media is actually doing it’s job, with in respectable tolerances, but it’s getting a bad rap by viewers, listeners and readers who simply have opposing agenda’s and views. As one who is analyzing the news, we should strive to realize that just because someone says something we agree with does not mean they are reporting the information in a fair, just and truthful manner. The same goes for those in the media with whom we disagree.
We must realize that just because a reporter sits in the White House press room on a daily basis does not mean that he or she knows more about what is going on than we do. Reporters get their information from “sources” but even those sources do not always tell those in the media the full story, or the correct one. The reporter has to judge what information he or she hears and try to find out whether the facts given were correct. When a reporter fails to find out that the information is truthful and accurate, then reports it as fact, he or she is guilty of not upholding their promise of honest reporting.
Sources:
Wikipedia: Mass Media
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Mass_media
Answers.com: Mass Medium
http://www.answers.com/topic/mass-media?cat=biz-fin
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)