It'sNotAFakeID Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I wish I could just embed this video but I can't. In this TED Talk, David Putnam discusses the role that the media(as well as us) has in fostering a better democracy. The current state of mainstream media is sad, and it's doing nothing to make our government better. In fact, it's making it worse. Perhaps it's time for a change in policy. No more inflammatory remarks, how about straight up facts? Let the people decide. Here's the link to the talk: http://www.ted.com/talks/david_puttnam_what_happens_when_the_media_s_priority_is_profit.html Link to comment
NUance Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 The thing is, the media gets paid for clicks. Not facts. So clicks it is. /edit: Ted Talks are great. I enjoy watching them on Netflix. : Link to comment
JJ Husker Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Problem is we can't dictate integrity. What we can do to some extent is not patronize those who don't just stick to the facts. But there will always be groups of people happier with hearing/reading/seeing what they want instead of just the truth and facts. It is unfixable. Link to comment
strigori Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Something like this was mentioned in an episode of The Newsroom. The gov granted use of the airwaves to the networks, and required they run daily news, but not seeing the potential for advertising, failed to stipulate no advertising. To be called 'news' you should be forbidden from having advertising. Having sponsors inherently adds a possibility to lose objectivity. If the organization cares more about losing a big sponsor than pursuing a story that would be bad light for said entity, will they do so? Odds are no they wont. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 here is rod sterling talking about censorship. kinda relevant? not sure, but he is one cool dude.the thing is, we get exactly what we deserve. everything is consumer driven. as h.l. menken said, "democracy is the theory that the common people know what they want, and deserve to get it good and hard." 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 Hm, that was interesting, BRB, thanks for sharing the vid. I think Mr. Putnam makes his an appeal everyone can relate to, but I'm not sure what the gist was. Tabloid readers are disengaged?....sure, although that's merely a correlation. It's less clear if reading tabloids causes this, or if avoiding tabloids causes the opposite. Further, there's a market for all kinds of media consumers: tabloid rags, New York Times, Fox News talk shows, TED videos. Where do you draw the line on what's good and what's not? Where things get really interesting is the whole "duty of care" argument. Presumably media that fail to adhere to these interpreted duties would be stripped of their voice, which sounds frighteningly like an authoritarian state legislating values and not, as Mr. Putnam believes, necessary for the continued survival of Western democracy. I mean, placing the decision of what's "truth" into the hands of the government is terrifying. Only the noblest of intentions, but how often do people advocate the securing of our freedoms by unwittingly crushing them? Confusingly, Mr. Putnam doesn't appear to agree with his own advocacy, at least in his introduction: We should always remember that our notion of individual freedom ...[is] a prize easily lost...And its first line of defense has to be our own standards, not those enforced on us by a censor or legislation, our own standards and our own integrity. ...unless I'm very much missing the point, which is definitely possible. There's a lot of the sense of the media serves an important function in a society like our own and it's failing spectacularly. I can't disagree, but the idea of taking every substandard media outlet to task for it is a very downstream approach. What about the upstream approach? Which is, education. It's really the only tool we have. In a free society, the government can't be relied on to protect people by deciding what's quality and what isn't. To do so would be to enslave the people. With the media, as any company, beholden to demand, a healthy society demands the good stuff into existence. Education is the bottom the line. I suppose what he's worried about is, how do you combat the pernicious forms of media that use sensationalism and dishonesty to sell clicks and in the meantime, undermine our civic institutions? Isn't oversight necessary? And I think the answer to that is again, education, an overwhelming amount of education which will always have more good guys, thinking for themselves and not referring to federal censors, shouting down the bad in the course of promoting their own interests and views. I didn't mean to take such a strong stance on this, but I'm ending up with a pretty negative opinion of this guy's ideas here. 1 Link to comment
Conga3 Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I think zoogies hit the nail on the head with this. We don't need the government to 'fix' the news providers. We need to focus on education...and not what to think, but how. If you find yourself thinking: 'I'm smart. I can tell the difference between truthful reporting of the news and garbage...but all the other stupid plebs can't...' The answer is not to control what people/corporations say to the stupid people, it's to work on making the stupid people less stupid. --- This Putnam guy is craftily suggesting that we censor news organizations. He may have a beard and a speak softly in a British accent, so he sounds and looks smart...but the ideas coming out of his mouth are idiotic. He's not the first "smart guy" to lament why the stupid plebs believe the "bad news" that's reported to them, and he won't be the last. 1 Link to comment
Landlord Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 As awful as the movie was, Anchorman 2 had a surprising undercurrent message dealing with this exact issue. It's frustrating, to say the least. Oh - also, a song about it http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=CkBxopffIBw Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 I have said over and over again that the pathetic excuse we have of news organizations in this country is much more dangerous than any politician we can send to Washington. Censorship won't work and it would be absolutely horrible. "News" organizations need to be held accountable for misinformation. If Fox News puts out a false report about Obama and its proven to be false, they should be sued for a billion dollars. If MSNBC puts out a false report about some Republican politician, then they should be sued for a billion dollars. Put one or two of these organizations out of business for doing it and the rest will snap to attention real fast. 1 Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 brb, you are right (although, i hope you do not think i was advocating censorship. that video i posted is about how a lot of times it is the consumer that demands it). i think a problem that is just as big, though, is opinion that is presented as news. and that news is just another for of entertainment now. i think we are just bad consumers of news and make it too easy for media members to be lazy and sensationalist. also, they hire people who are self-censored. ask any news person if they are censored and they would vehemently deny it. but they are there because of what they say, which is to stick to conventional, easy-to-digest news stories that will get viewers. the good news is that there are alternatives. and with air time getting easier and easier to access, they are getting more exposure. the problem is that channels like cnn see their numbers dwindle and their only response is to do the crappy things they do (that make "news" organizations a regular joke on 'the daily show') more crappy. it is like a death spiral and as many have noted, they are basically becoming tmz because that is all they know how to do to get viewers. just look at the progression of "crossfire." i grew up watching that with my dad and when i first watched it it was an intellectual panel with in depth conversations. but by they time it ended, it was a grown man in a bowtie and an insufferable git screaming at each other over petty stories that were utterly meaningless. just trying to get quick one-liners at the expense of bush or kerry or whoever. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 A really sad situation is that I have actually met people who claim they get their news from The Daily Show. It is sad when the actual "News" organizations are so bad that people actually think they are getting news from a show that openly says it is a comedy entertainment show. Link to comment
sd'sker Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 yeah, and the daily show mostly just mocks how others cover the news. not much time (it is a 22 min. show, after all, with a guest) is even really dedicated to mocking the news itself. Link to comment
Junior Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 A really sad situation is that I have actually met people who claim they get their news from The Daily Show. It is sad when the actual "News" organizations are so bad that people actually think they are getting news from a show that openly says it is a comedy entertainment show. Makes me think of this: Also, back in the day, the Daily Show's tagline was actually: "Where more Americans get their news than probably should" 1 Link to comment
zoogs Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 "News" organizations need to be held accountable for misinformation. If Fox News puts out a false report about Obama and its proven to be false, they should be sued for a billion dollars. If MSNBC puts out a false report about some Republican politician, then they should be sued for a billion dollars. Put one or two of these organizations out of business for doing it and the rest will snap to attention real fast. Hm, I think some of this legal structure exists already. Presumably Fox, MSNBC, etc, are all accountable for libel. I am not too sure how frequently they get facts wrong (outside of the opinion talk guys), but a billion dollars of litigation doesn't sound commensurate to that 'crime'. An educated society responds with different, better organizations calling them out on their crap -- like factcheck.org and the sites similar to it, and the Daily Show... A really sad situation is that I have actually met people who claim they get their news from The Daily Show. It is sad when the actual "News" organizations are so bad that people actually think they are getting news from a show that openly says it is a comedy entertainment show. ...which you get to here. I think I fall (sorta) into this category, but I don't think it's a bad thing at all. First, TDS is more than late night comedy; that's just their medium. It's a very politically engaged show that takes other media to task when they get it wrong, providing exactly the social good that is needed. And the fact that it is extremely popular, especially among the younger demographic, is a positive reflection of the next generation's engagement and so on. I don't think it's totally fair to say people who watch TDS only get their news there, though. I think it just tends to mean 'Doesn't watch CNN daily'. There's also social media and Huskerboard... Facebook shares are how a lot of people hear things, right? Which actually leads me to another TED talk, Eli Pariser: Beware online 'filter bubble' , which talks about another potentially socially damaging development where companies like Google and Facebook use user data to filter search results / news feed items for your 'relevance', resulting in an insulated experience you don't even know is happening. Link to comment
BigRedBuster Posted February 12, 2014 Share Posted February 12, 2014 "News" organizations need to be held accountable for misinformation. If Fox News puts out a false report about Obama and its proven to be false, they should be sued for a billion dollars. If MSNBC puts out a false report about some Republican politician, then they should be sued for a billion dollars. Put one or two of these organizations out of business for doing it and the rest will snap to attention real fast. Hm, I think some of this legal structure exists already. Presumably Fox, MSNBC, etc, are all accountable for libel. I am not too sure how frequently they get facts wrong (outside of the opinion talk guys), but a billion dollars of litigation doesn't sound commensurate to that 'crime'. An educated society responds with different, better organizations calling them out on their crap -- like factcheck.org and the sites similar to it, and the Daily Show... Of course the legal structure is already there. Every law we need is already in place. BUT....nobody is going to use them. You have politicians that buy and pay for certain networks to feed us all the information they want us to have. So, even though Dems don't like Fox, they aren't going to sue Fox because they love doing the same thing with MSNBC. The exact same thing is with Republicans and MSNBC. Sure.....individuals like you and me see through the game but we aren't going to sue either mainly because we don't have the resources to go up against Fox and MSNBC along with all the political organizations behind them. They are VERY well funded. So....the status quo remains and people like you and me are stuck in the middle. Link to comment
Recommended Posts