Want to switch gears here for a second and give everyone a topic that isn't so daunting. In the interest of fairness I want everyone's "opinion" on what role media should play in human civilization. Entertainment? Education? Whatever. You don't have to worry about defending your arguments just post something that has to do with the topic. To give you all more perspective and to encourage participation I'll give you some more information.
I'm a Journalist and speaking as someone who has experience in the media my views, in addition to carrying a great deal of weight, are also needed to move this topic forward. I've been in this business for a couple of years and I've worked in magazines as well as public television and radio. With that comes a great deal of experience and some stories.
I got into the biz because I felt that truth and the spread of the truth was (or should have been) the main purpose of Journalism. However, experience has taught me differently. When I was in my senior year of instruction I benefitted from (or was hindered by) interviews with actual experts in the field who uniformly told us that based on their experience it was important to get the story that people want to hear before your rivals are able to. Journalism is one big ass ratings war between this paper contra that one, these stations against those, and so forth, add naseum.
Of course I assumed this to be their experience and it would have no bearing on what I do in my daily lot. I'm rarely wrong about anything but when I am, watch out and boy was I wrong about this particular venture.
It's been my experience that the main aim is to again, grab the stories that people want to hear before our rivals "steal" it from us. [Last time I checked no one could claim current events of this world so the concept of stealing a lead or a story is just absurd.] Anyway, the magazine I work for is focused on delivering the news, but it's the news we think you want to hear. Of course it's like that everywhere.
We tell the general masses how to think and what to think about. That's the power we have. But with great power comes great negligence.
I have to ask, when telling people the news you wanted to hear, did anyone from my standing ever think to ask you what you needed to hear? I already know certain members are going to blow as gasket because of how I phrased that but it will only serve to entertain me. It is what it is but I'll be reasonable so I've posted a DISCLAIMER in brackets.
[If I seem arrogant it's because it comes with the business. But inspite of that arrogance I have a humble request. I want to know what you people think Journalism is supposed to be. And I say you people not to imply that my job makes me better than you but simply because Journalists don't see themselves as part of the masses. We provide information, you accept that information. There is a disconnection so I do not say you people to be insulting, merely that there is a difference between "we" who provide information and "you" accept whatever that may be.]
The general masses don't know what's going on in the world until we report it. How we report the goings on in the world determines how much you know. And how we spin the story determines how you will feel. We have total informational control. I enjoy having power but the way we use it is, admittedly, wrong. I mean if we're reporting the news, we're supposed to be objective right? Right, but I guess my youth makes me stupid because apparently I'm the only one in the biz who thinks that.
Come and take a walk with me. I asked before that in deciding what you people want to hear, did any of us Journalists think to ask what you need to hear? Of course not. For the most part we're too proud for that. And that has a lot to do with the problems in the industry and in the world today. Truthful reporting is gone.
No matter what station you watch, listen to, no matter what paper or magazine you read or Blog you subscribe to, all you will ever know is 40% truth (at the most) and 60% manufactured (at the least). I'm not pulling a, "Haha you know nothing and I know everything," rather I'm pointing to a very real, very disgusting problem that no one in this damn industry is doing anything about.
Getting back to my personal experience, one of my aims was to spread the truth, stamp out corruption, and provide information to all people to use to better themselves and their lives. At my job, stamping out corruption is fine unless it leads back to a corporation who is feeding us money. It's fine to put these corrupt politicians in their place except when they're friends of the boss. It's perfectly acceptable to talk about how "other" magazines are racist but when ours is on the chopping block the boss wants to disavow any knowledge. I ask, WTF?
[You might say hey, your boss is just trying to protect his own interests. OK, I'll roll with that. But ignoring corruption doesn't make it go away.]
In other news I or someone else might have a story that can be beneficial to a large group of people (who's hiring for example) but if our "target demographic" doesn't find such news "entertaining" then it won't get a pop. I mean what the hell man? If it's a choice between promoting a small business or promoting one of our corporate sponsors you know who gets play. If we have information about corruption within a company but someone in that same compay just cut us a check our job goes from getting the story to shutting the hell up.
You don't need to know how I got this information. It's my job.
There was this guy, one of the higher-ups in the state. I won't say which state and I won't say who he was. What the hell let's call him John. John worked with a local business and as time went on there were certain amounts of money showing up and disappearing, phony invoices, projects that got the green light but never happened and didn't have any contractors, and other under the table stuff. Turns out that John and the head of that particular business that John was working with were using state resources to trick the state out of money while they shared the take. John would say that the business in question had a project that could promote the state. The state would green light it, cut the business a check and John and that company's CEO split the take. This was state money (OK taxpayer money) going into the pockets of two assholes who used it to vacation, gamble, and splurge. That's news I think the people need to hear but of course, that's my Journalistic arrogance talking.
I know some reporters and production guys from a few stations and my story is not unsual to them. They're more surprised by "how much I was blowing it out of proportion." Yeah I know this sort of thing is common place but it needs to be reported.
It was my view that our job was to report the news fairly and without a hidden agenda but obviously that's not the case. I mean did anyone catch the Today Show on Monday? Two stories about two mothers with missing/dead kids, both of them white and both of them took up much of the airtime. I mean what, there aren't any Black, Hispanic, or Asian kids that go missing in America? I mean if you don't believe me watch any story, on any station, in any part of the country in which a child is abducted or killed and 9 out of 10 of those kids are white girls. Obviously this isn't the reality but to the millions of sheep out there the only kids that get kidnapped are white. That's how the news reports it.
And of course the worst is public radio and public television. Why? Because we're allowed to air any crap we want and the people accept it because we tricked them into thinking that "THEY" wanted us to. At least if you're watching FOX news you know what that game is about. [Speaking of FOX "News" check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/jon-stewart-fox-news-common-outrage_n_860956.html]But it's not that easy with "public" stations.
Even public stations (cough NPR cough) are owned and operated by special interest groups (or Republicans) who do a helluva job making sure you think they don't have an agenda. Some "liberal" stations are actually owned and operated by "conservatives" as just another way to make the masses think they have a say or a voice in the media when they don't.
I mean it's funny as hell. Not really funny but detestable. When bodies like NPR are putting together their programs, and they label it "public" what it actually is are a bunch of suits, sitting around tables, deciding what they're going to air that will bring in the biggest ratings at the lowest socio-political cost to their backers. ["Cause you know it's all about giving the gays what they want." "Yeah but the issue with that is we have to give the Blacks a show too." "Wow really Peg?"] Public broadcasting is brought to us by our dear politicians, not viewers like you.
Getting back to my main point, Journalists claim that we give the people the news they want. I ask, how many Journalists have asked you what you want to hear? How many Journalists do you people talk to on a daily basis? Because if the answer is "no" to the former and "very few" to the latter then our claim as Journalists comes into very real jeopardy. If we're not in the streets asking you people what you want, then how the hell do we know?
Interpret this as me raging against the machine. So in your view, what is the role of Journalism and the media because shit, it looks like we don't have a clue. I thought it was about getting to the truth, reporting the events in this world without an agenda, and upholding integrity of reporting. So I reiterate thus: "I'm rarely wrong about anything but when I am watch out!" I sure didn't see it coming.
I'm a Journalist and speaking as someone who has experience in the media my views, in addition to carrying a great deal of weight, are also needed to move this topic forward. I've been in this business for a couple of years and I've worked in magazines as well as public television and radio. With that comes a great deal of experience and some stories.
I got into the biz because I felt that truth and the spread of the truth was (or should have been) the main purpose of Journalism. However, experience has taught me differently. When I was in my senior year of instruction I benefitted from (or was hindered by) interviews with actual experts in the field who uniformly told us that based on their experience it was important to get the story that people want to hear before your rivals are able to. Journalism is one big ass ratings war between this paper contra that one, these stations against those, and so forth, add naseum.
Of course I assumed this to be their experience and it would have no bearing on what I do in my daily lot. I'm rarely wrong about anything but when I am, watch out and boy was I wrong about this particular venture.
It's been my experience that the main aim is to again, grab the stories that people want to hear before our rivals "steal" it from us. [Last time I checked no one could claim current events of this world so the concept of stealing a lead or a story is just absurd.] Anyway, the magazine I work for is focused on delivering the news, but it's the news we think you want to hear. Of course it's like that everywhere.
We tell the general masses how to think and what to think about. That's the power we have. But with great power comes great negligence.
I have to ask, when telling people the news you wanted to hear, did anyone from my standing ever think to ask you what you needed to hear? I already know certain members are going to blow as gasket because of how I phrased that but it will only serve to entertain me. It is what it is but I'll be reasonable so I've posted a DISCLAIMER in brackets.
[If I seem arrogant it's because it comes with the business. But inspite of that arrogance I have a humble request. I want to know what you people think Journalism is supposed to be. And I say you people not to imply that my job makes me better than you but simply because Journalists don't see themselves as part of the masses. We provide information, you accept that information. There is a disconnection so I do not say you people to be insulting, merely that there is a difference between "we" who provide information and "you" accept whatever that may be.]
The general masses don't know what's going on in the world until we report it. How we report the goings on in the world determines how much you know. And how we spin the story determines how you will feel. We have total informational control. I enjoy having power but the way we use it is, admittedly, wrong. I mean if we're reporting the news, we're supposed to be objective right? Right, but I guess my youth makes me stupid because apparently I'm the only one in the biz who thinks that.
Come and take a walk with me. I asked before that in deciding what you people want to hear, did any of us Journalists think to ask what you need to hear? Of course not. For the most part we're too proud for that. And that has a lot to do with the problems in the industry and in the world today. Truthful reporting is gone.
No matter what station you watch, listen to, no matter what paper or magazine you read or Blog you subscribe to, all you will ever know is 40% truth (at the most) and 60% manufactured (at the least). I'm not pulling a, "Haha you know nothing and I know everything," rather I'm pointing to a very real, very disgusting problem that no one in this damn industry is doing anything about.
Getting back to my personal experience, one of my aims was to spread the truth, stamp out corruption, and provide information to all people to use to better themselves and their lives. At my job, stamping out corruption is fine unless it leads back to a corporation who is feeding us money. It's fine to put these corrupt politicians in their place except when they're friends of the boss. It's perfectly acceptable to talk about how "other" magazines are racist but when ours is on the chopping block the boss wants to disavow any knowledge. I ask, WTF?
[You might say hey, your boss is just trying to protect his own interests. OK, I'll roll with that. But ignoring corruption doesn't make it go away.]
In other news I or someone else might have a story that can be beneficial to a large group of people (who's hiring for example) but if our "target demographic" doesn't find such news "entertaining" then it won't get a pop. I mean what the hell man? If it's a choice between promoting a small business or promoting one of our corporate sponsors you know who gets play. If we have information about corruption within a company but someone in that same compay just cut us a check our job goes from getting the story to shutting the hell up.
You don't need to know how I got this information. It's my job.
There was this guy, one of the higher-ups in the state. I won't say which state and I won't say who he was. What the hell let's call him John. John worked with a local business and as time went on there were certain amounts of money showing up and disappearing, phony invoices, projects that got the green light but never happened and didn't have any contractors, and other under the table stuff. Turns out that John and the head of that particular business that John was working with were using state resources to trick the state out of money while they shared the take. John would say that the business in question had a project that could promote the state. The state would green light it, cut the business a check and John and that company's CEO split the take. This was state money (OK taxpayer money) going into the pockets of two assholes who used it to vacation, gamble, and splurge. That's news I think the people need to hear but of course, that's my Journalistic arrogance talking.
I know some reporters and production guys from a few stations and my story is not unsual to them. They're more surprised by "how much I was blowing it out of proportion." Yeah I know this sort of thing is common place but it needs to be reported.
It was my view that our job was to report the news fairly and without a hidden agenda but obviously that's not the case. I mean did anyone catch the Today Show on Monday? Two stories about two mothers with missing/dead kids, both of them white and both of them took up much of the airtime. I mean what, there aren't any Black, Hispanic, or Asian kids that go missing in America? I mean if you don't believe me watch any story, on any station, in any part of the country in which a child is abducted or killed and 9 out of 10 of those kids are white girls. Obviously this isn't the reality but to the millions of sheep out there the only kids that get kidnapped are white. That's how the news reports it.
And of course the worst is public radio and public television. Why? Because we're allowed to air any crap we want and the people accept it because we tricked them into thinking that "THEY" wanted us to. At least if you're watching FOX news you know what that game is about. [Speaking of FOX "News" check this out: http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2011/05/12/jon-stewart-fox-news-common-outrage_n_860956.html]But it's not that easy with "public" stations.
Even public stations (cough NPR cough) are owned and operated by special interest groups (or Republicans) who do a helluva job making sure you think they don't have an agenda. Some "liberal" stations are actually owned and operated by "conservatives" as just another way to make the masses think they have a say or a voice in the media when they don't.
I mean it's funny as hell. Not really funny but detestable. When bodies like NPR are putting together their programs, and they label it "public" what it actually is are a bunch of suits, sitting around tables, deciding what they're going to air that will bring in the biggest ratings at the lowest socio-political cost to their backers. ["Cause you know it's all about giving the gays what they want." "Yeah but the issue with that is we have to give the Blacks a show too." "Wow really Peg?"] Public broadcasting is brought to us by our dear politicians, not viewers like you.
Getting back to my main point, Journalists claim that we give the people the news they want. I ask, how many Journalists have asked you what you want to hear? How many Journalists do you people talk to on a daily basis? Because if the answer is "no" to the former and "very few" to the latter then our claim as Journalists comes into very real jeopardy. If we're not in the streets asking you people what you want, then how the hell do we know?
Interpret this as me raging against the machine. So in your view, what is the role of Journalism and the media because shit, it looks like we don't have a clue. I thought it was about getting to the truth, reporting the events in this world without an agenda, and upholding integrity of reporting. So I reiterate thus: "I'm rarely wrong about anything but when I am watch out!" I sure didn't see it coming.
). In an ideal world, they just report whats happening in the world without giving an explanation for it. Just report the observable facts and thats it. For news anyways. The rest is just entertainment. Thats my take on it anyways.