An Amusing thing happened on the News the other day

There was a perceptible difference between the coverage on the tsunami that hit South-East Asia in December 2004 and the earthquake that hit Pakistan in October 2005. The tsunami received far more extensive coverage in all countries analyzed in both television and print media which in turn affected people's behaviour in terms of private donations.

... the tsunami received ... private donations amounting to $178 millionwhile only $8 million has been collected for the earthquake so far.

"Here may lie the most important effect of mass communication, its ability to mentally order and organize our world for us. In short, the mass media may not be successful in telling us what to think, but they are stunningly successful in telling us what to think about."
-Shaw & McCombs, 1977 php#ASexamples

So what? Some disasters garner more out pouring of support than others, right?

I would ask you, why is that? Could it be because the Media, by choosing what to report, and how to report it, has a direct effect on how the "average person" ends up viewing the world?

Such "Agenda Setting" is a foundational principle taught at most Journalism Schools. (The previous chart is a graphic illustration of the Direct Cause and Effect relationship here.)

Media Agenda Setting

- The decision to cover any event or issue necessarily means that other issues are more unlikely to be covered, even if those issues are arguably more important

Agenda Setting Theory

According to the agenda-setting theory, ... media sets the agenda for public opinion by highlighting certain issues. In studying the way political campaigns were covered in the media, Shaw and McCombs found that the main effect of the news media was to set an agenda, i.e. to tell people not what to think, but what to think about as opposed to persuasion or attitude change. h.php

Anyone remember the 1st OJ Trial?  How could you NOT!

Everyone had an Opinion on the OJ Trial too. (It was the genesis of the modern era of sensational Cable News, too.) It was the Media's wall-to-wall coverage of that story, that almost forced you to form an Opinion, one way or another. (The Media Directors learned a few things about attracting an audience then too.)

Here's another Experiment currently taking place with Media Agenda Setting:

Clinton and Obama Hog the Headlines - Jan 31, 2007

And what is the direct Effect of all that favorable News Coverage for Clinton and Obama, which the Media has been steadily feeding America, from day one?

CNN/Opinion Research tes/
[And just like the story of "Tsunami vs. the Earthquake" the Donation Dollars have followed the Political News Cycle too, it seems.]

Still not convinced? Here are a few more Amusing Examples of "selective" Media Agenda Setting:

John Edwards has had a comprehensive Universal Health Care Plan spelled out since the beginning of 2007. And Michael Moore had a Movie out earlier this year, Sicko, exploring the many flaws of our "Sick-Care" system.

And the response of the Corporate Media?

Most Media Agenda Setters could find little time to seriously cover either of these notable events, in any depth. Moore did receive a fair amount of ridicule for his views, and Edwards got a fair amount of ridicule for his "Hair Care"(and next to NO Coverage on his "Health Care" Plan).

So Much for "Fair and Balanced" Reporting!

Yet these same Media Agenda Setters were tripping over themselves to cover Hillary Clinton, when she announced her Universal Health Care Plan (which was so similar to Edwards' plan, it was "like she copied his homework").

In fact Hillary is such a Darling of the Corporate Media programming directors, she managed to score the famed "Full Ginsburg"(appearances on all 5 Sunday News Shows) to discuss her "novel" Health Care Plan:

The political pundits analyzed Senator Hillary Rodham Clinton's September 23 appearance on all five major Sunday television political talk shows in the United States -- NBC's Meet the Press, CBS's Face the Nation, Fox News Sunday, ABC's This Week, and CNN's Late Edition.

Clinton's performance was dubbed the "Full Ginsburg," a term coined after William Ginsburg, a lawyer who defended former White House intern Monica Lewinsky during a notorious Washington sex scandal, was interviewed on the same day in February 1998 by all five major talk shows.

Yepsen agreed that Clinton's "Full Ginsburg" stemmed from her desire to "manage her message."

"She deals with the media when it suits her purposes. She's not great at granting interviews to a lot of people because she wants to stay on message," he said.

The New York senator's appearances on all the Sunday shows were timed for the rollout of her health care proposal,"and on that, she did a good job," according to Yepsen.

Gonzales said Clinton's appearance on all five talk shows September 23 made her the news story of that day. "There wasn't a lot of oxygen [news coverage time] left" for other presidential candidates following her appearances, he said.

According to Yepsen, Clinton's one flaw on the shows, picked up by the mainstream media, was her "forced guffaw" when asked to respond to "tough questions."

That "scripted" laugh sounded "phony" to voters, he said. y.html?p=washfile-english&x=20070928 1450051xeneerg0.1931421

Luckily for progressives, in spite of the Clinton Clout to demand Media Coverage at will, she still can't control the "annoying" Questions that she gets asked. And apparently her defensive reaction is to laugh off questioners, when they have a question she hasn't "focused-group" tested yet:

"The weirdest moment was with Bob Schieffer on the CBS News program 'Face the Nation' when Mr. Schieffer said to Mrs. Clinton, 'You rolled out your new health care plan, something Republicans immediately said is going to lead to socialized medicine.' She giggled, giggled some more, and then could not seem to stop giggling -- 'Sorry, Bob,' she said -- and finally unleashed the full Cackle ... tent/blog/2007/10/02/BL2007100200364.htm l

Hillary Clinton on Face the Nation - Part 2 V0

Not SO Lucky for progressives, Hillary Clinton has managed to laugh off any serious questioning of her support for the current "Iran is next Iraq" Agenda Setting undercurrent, being stirred up by the Media Elite and Administrative Officials, once again:

Hillary Clinton Believes War With Iran Would Be Funny 0o

Luckily for Hillary Clinton she still has lots of friends in the high places apparently, who would rather do reports on"She's Inevitable", and "Look at this Horse Race". I guess those fluff stories are much easier than having to ask her "What's so Funny, Senator?"

[ But her nervous laughter "speaks for itself" -- Teflon is really more a technique, than a coating! ]

So it goes ... Hillary gets positive "Free Press", on demand. Meanwhile the other Candidates, are left gasping for "their share" of that limited "News Cycle Oxygen".

Where are the hard Questions from the Media? Where is the Journalistic Critique? Where is the Equal Access to the Airways?Gone with the Wind, it would seem.

Perhaps the Media Elite is too busy "currying favor", to bother with their Constitutional mandate of being the "Watchdogs on Government" and the "Champions of Democracy"?

Perhaps the Corporate Agenda DOESN'T really "play nicely" with a Citizen's Agenda, afterall?

What's Wrong With the News?

Issue Area: Official Agendas

Despite the claims that the press has an adversarial relationship with the government,in truth U.S. media generally follow Washington's official line. This is particularly obvious in wartime and in foreign policy coverage, but even with domestic controversies, the spectrum of debate usually falls in the relatively narrow range between the leadership of the Democratic and Republican parties.

The owners and managers of dominant media outlets generally share the background, worldview and income bracket of political elites. Top news executives and celebrity reporters frequently socialize with government officials. The most powerful media companies routinely make large contributions to both major political parties, while receiving millions of dollars in return in the form of payments for running political ads.

In this incestuous culture, "news" is defined chiefly as the actions and statements of people in power.Reporters, dependent on "access" and leaks provided by official sources, are too often unwilling to risk alienating these sources with truly critical coverage. Nor are corporate media outlets interested in angering the elected and bureaucratic officials who have the power to regulate their businesses. ;issue_area_id=36

Think that "following Washington's official line" is a bit of an over-statement? What would you call this cave-in by Pelosi?

Pelosi Rebukes Fellow Democrat -- Associated Press

During a debate on children's health care Thursday, Rep. Pete Stark accused Republicans of sending troops to Iraq to "get their heads blown off for the president's amusement."

Pelosi issued a statement Friday evening rapping Stark, who is in his 18th term representing the liberal East Bay. He's California's longest-serving House members.

"While members of Congress are passionate about their views, what Congressman Stark said during the debate was inappropriate and distracted from the seriousness of the subject at hand -- providing health care for America's children," Pelosi said. TNAgcr4tfkoAW2ZXonnf6jQD8SCIR5O0

Besides setting the Legislative Agenda for the Country, now the Congress wants to police "Free Speech" too! What's next, perhaps telling us who to vote for too?

Granted, the phrase "president's amusement" used by the frustrated Representative Pete Stark, was rather harsh. But still it plainly falls in the realm of "Free Speech"! Doesn't it? (It may even have some basis in fact too, as we will see shortly.)

So why all the piling on Stark, by the Media, and even the Democratic Speaker?

Well perhaps, the dirty business of currying favor, between the Media Agenda Setters and the Political Agenda Setters, DOES make for "amusing" bed-fellows, afterall?

Just check out this "Radio and Television Correspondents" Dinner at the Whitehouse back in 2004. AND A GOOD TIME was had by ALL !!

Bush jokes about WMD's at White House dinner N8

What is "Amusement" to one class of people, is just "the Misery" that the working class, must bear! Just "Who finds What, Amusing" really is within the eye of the beholder, it would seem. (Just don't Dare to point that out though, as Pete Stark found out.)

NO WMD's? NO Problem! ... They don't need no stinking reasons! (When the "In Crowd" is really in on the Joke, there's no Watchdog left to "sound the alarm".)

There's really nothing to worry about, with all this "business as usual" merriment, is there? Really, they only have the average American's "best interests" in mind. ... Right? Iraq ... Iran ... they both hate America right?

Well, maybe, but I wouldn't necessarily believe everything you See on TV, these days:

Fake TV News: Widespread and Undisclosed

April 6, 2006

Over a ten-month period, the Center for Media and Democracy (CMD) documented television newsrooms' use of 36 video news releases (VNRs)--a small sample of the thousands produced each year. CMD identified 77 television stations, from those in the largest to the smallest markets, that aired these VNRs or related satellite media tours (SMTs) in 98 separate instances, without disclosure to viewers.

Collectively, these 77 stations reach more than half of the U.S. population. ary

Fake TV News: Video News Releases - VNR Clips /vnrs

What's good for GE, is good for America -- just trust them!

Look at how well the adventure in Iraq turned out, OMG!

"Business as Usual" IS GOOD for you!
(Or so they've have you believe.)

I for one, am glad that John Edwards is NOT part of that "in crowd" of the Washington Elite power-brokers ...

AND I am proud to support his efforts to FINALLY get this Insider Back-scratching System ... OUT of OUR Government!

One Democracy Initiative: Returning Washington To Regular People

[ BTW I'd like to see Hillary try to "Copy this Homework Assignment too" -- OMG, that would really BE the day! ]

However, this issue of the Media "picking and choosing" what to Report, and what to IGNORE, is really much more than about ANY ONE Candidate -- It's about OUR "Marketplace of Ideas" being tailored to fit just a "few prescribed" world views.

As concerned citizens, we should always be asking: "Who is writing 'those Prescriptions'?" ... And Why?

And what was that "Amusing thing that happened on the News"? It was all the stuff that WASN'T Reported -- and HOW No One even Noticed!

Tags: 2008 Primaries, agenda setting, corporations, Framing, George W. Bush, Hillary Clinton, John Edwards, Media, MSM, Nancy Pelosi, National Polls, Pete Stark, Video News Releases (all tags)



Re: An Amusing thing happened

It'd be nice if a diary with a point like this and charts and whatnot was actually issue-based and not plugging a certain candidate. I certainly don't blame you for pushing your guy, of course, I'm just saying, normally I'd rec'd something like this, but I'm not an Edwards guy.

by Nathan Empsall 2007-10-27 09:16AM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

thanks Texan,

I tend to agree,
except Edwards is directly addressing "this Washington Insider Club" and intends to correct it: m/

And point 2)

WHO the Media CHOOSES to Cover -- DOES effect the Publics perceptions of the Candidates
(and that is one of the most disturbing aspects of THIS ISSUE)

If the Media was "fawning over Edwards" and ignoring Clinton --
the Issue WOULD still be the same, just those feeling excluded would be different.

Our National CEO Interview Process,
really shouldn't be turned into just another episode of Survivor --
where the Media decides who is tossed off the Island!

It's much more important, to be trivialized to just a Horse Race, IMO.

by jamess 2007-10-27 09:35AM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

I agree. I still remember the post-debate polling after the first debate which said Obama won, but you'ld never have known that from watching the medias coverage. Yet when only 2 million people actually watched the debate and 200 million watched the medias coverage then it really doesn't much matter what really happened.

The MSM has had a huge impact on this race. Edwards has been largely ignored, Obama got lots of positive coverage before he actually entered the race but since then it's been mostly negative, and Hillary has been treated with kidd gloves throughout. In a world where most people get ALL their information on the race from the TV news, that gives them unbelievable power to shape the outcome, particularly in the primaries where most people pay even less attention than they do in the GE.

by Mystylplx 2007-10-27 11:16AM | 0 recs
Pop quiz

Question: What do you call it when "Survivor" meets the "The Apprentice"?

Answer: the 2008 Primary Season, as delivered by your friendly Corporate Media newsrooms!

Our National CEO Interview Process,
really shouldn't be turned into just another episode of Survivor --
where it's up to the Media to decide, who is tossed off the Island!

It's much more important, to be trivialized to just a Horse Race,
where's it's the Citizen's "Right to Know" that is always what "gets Fired!"

For me personally, John Edwards (and maybe Ron Paul, and Dennis K.) are the only "prospective CEO's applicants" who are addressing "this Washington Insider Club" that shapes our world views.

BUT John Edwards has a VERY comprehensive plan to get the Money and Favoritism out of Politics: m/
---- JohnEdwards

But Hey! That's just this ONE Citizen's Opinion.
We're still all free to express our own views in this country, on forums like this one.

Let's hope that this essential freedom ultimately "survives" too!

BTW, Edwards cares about the issues of "net neutrality" and "media ownership" too:

Edwards will strengthen rules against highly concentrated media ownership and define robust public interest obligations for digital broadcasters, a task 12 years overdue.

He will promote citizens' full democratic participation online by achieving universal broadband access by 2010 and protecting the net neutrality rules that prohibit the selective degradation or blocking of access to certain web sites or services.

thanks Mystylplx for your thoughtful feedback :)

by jamess 2007-10-27 11:40AM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened
Fantastic diary Jamess!  It's just amazing how much info you've provided.
Surely Chinese TV is proud of our MSM.
by annefrank 2007-10-28 11:17AM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

thanks annefrank for your kind feedback!

Maybe American workers should try to figure out how to "Outsource our opinionated Pundits"?

If all those Talking Heads were knock off their "high horse" for a while, perhaps they'd once again appreciate the value of Real Journalism!

Enough of the DC Echo Chamber Spin Rooms, and A-List Parties!
How about covering the dire issues occurring everyday, on Main Street, Anytown, USA!

Goodness knows, most American have Real Issues to deal with day in and day out. Pundits should Walk in our shoes for a Day -- or even a week, or a Year, and then they MIGHT get it! (assuming they still have any compassion left, in that chamber, they call, their Nielson-ticker.)

by jamess 2007-10-28 12:27PM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

You mean - because you're not an Edwards guy, you can't see how the media has ignored John Edwards?

by annefrank 2007-10-28 11:15AM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

No, I certainly agree with that, but at the same time, I feel the media also mistreats Biden, Dodd, and Richardson as well, and in a much different way, HRC and Obama. I will rec'd a diary that talks about the shoddy coverage in general, but not one that simultaneously clearly supports one of the candidates (unless it's mine, ha). If this was DK, I'd rec'd the Tip Jar, though!

by Nathan Empsall 2007-10-28 04:18PM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

I feel ALL Candidates should get equal treatment from the Press.

Sorry I don't have time to analyze all the bias against each of them, myself -- though it's apparent the disdain the Media hold towards the so-called 2nd tier Dem Candidates. (and some of the 1st tier too). They have basically written them off, by calling them "long shots" or lighten strikes, etc.

The Media shouldn't decide who' Viable and who's Not -- the Media SHOULD just give them ALL equal access, and then Let the People decide, when they Vote. I like how PBS handles this, by giving all the Candidate an in-depth Fair Interview, and Bob Schieffer, with CBS too, seem to be taking the same approach. The rest of them treat Candidates News and Interviews, like these were covering B. Spears or Book promo Deals. It's truly quite pathetic, what the Press has turned into in this Country. They are too opinionated for their own good -- and the pathetic thing -- they all CLAIM to be Objective.  Haaah!

Thanks for your views Texan, I basically agree with you.

by jamess 2007-10-28 06:34PM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

I had the chance to grill ABC's new Political Director David Chalian about this... he said there has to be some sort of way of determining coverage, and polls and fundraising happen to be that way - completely ignoring what I said to him about John Kerry's place in the polls and second mortgage this time in '03. Chalian defended this by saying, "But I don't think anyone who regularly watches our network wouldn't know that Joe Biden is running for President!"

Yes. Because in a race where everyone knows about the Obama-Clinton flap on Geffen and Iran, Thompson's boringness, and about Edwards' focus on poverty and his $400 haircut, all we really need to know about Biden and Dodd is that they're running. You bastard.

I've talked to a number of reporters about modern crappy journalism. The folks from NPR and PBS tend to say, "I know it sucks, and I wish I knew how to fix it!" The folks from NBC and Fox have said, "It sucks, but sadly there's no way to fix it, good luck kid." And at least three folks from ABC have given me some variation of, "It's great, we do a phenomenal job, how dare you accuse us of anything else, you impudent fool!" Bastards.

by Nathan Empsall 2007-10-28 08:04PM | 0 recs
James! You did it again!

Fantastic diary! Great videos! And yes the media is manipulating us to death. Shoving Clinton down our throats, while stabbing us in the back.

by cosbo 2007-10-27 09:20AM | 0 recs
Re: James! You did it again!

thanks for the feedback cosbo!

Much appreciated

by jamess 2007-10-27 11:55AM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

Great diary, James!

by TomP 2007-10-27 09:28AM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened

thanks TomP -- some new Frames "to go" here, lol!

by jamess 2007-10-27 11:56AM | 0 recs
Consider terrorism...

On 911 almost 3,000 people were killed by terrorists, and to this day the media and many politicians continue to talk about terrorism as if they were a threat to America comparable to Nazi Germany or the Soviets. But lets put this into perspective--

Almost 7,000 Americans die every day from all causes. That's two 911's a day, every day.

Approx 36,000 Americans die every year from the flu. That means that even if there were a 911 scale terrorist attack every single year they would still be less than 1/10th the threat to American lives as is the flu.

Tobacco related illness kills about 450,000 Americans a year. That's 150 911's a year every year. How much money have we spent to combat the tobacco companies as compared the the "war on terror?"

So what does this have to do with the media? It's the media who are able to warp peoples perceptions. I don't say they do it intentionally--it has more to do with what they consider a 'story' to be. When people die of the flu they don't do it all in one place at one time, and most importantly there are no incredibly dramatic pictures or video footage to show over and over and over again. And as a result the vast majority of Americans truly believe that terrorists are a far greater threat than objectively greater threats to American lives... like the flu.

I don't think they do it on purpose. They just have a overwhelming bias towards the dramatic which presents such a skewed image of what's really going on the world.

by Mystylplx 2007-10-27 11:30AM | 0 recs
Re: Consider terrorism...

thanks for those stats, Mystylplx.
they kind of put things in perspective.

Maybe we need a "Global War on Flu" (GWOF)

while were at it a "Global War on Poverty" too (GWOP)
and maybe even a "Global War on Outsourcing" (GWOO)

Would go a long ways to addressing the "root causes" of Global Discontent --
and maybe like Malaria -- the breeding grounds of terror can be minimized by this Generation?

one parting thought:

How about "Global War on War" (GWOW) ???

"Peace Dividends" USED to mean something in this country -- why no longer?

A New Strategy Against Terrorism -- John Edwards

Pace University, New York, NY -- Sep 7, 2007 ew-strategy-against-terrorism/

by jamess 2007-10-27 11:53AM | 0 recs
Re: Consider terrorism...

I like Edwards stance on terrorism. It's not too much different from Obama's, except that (to his credit) Edwards is willing to admit that the whole GWOT thing is little more than a bumper sticker. This is a law-enforcement issue, NOT a real "war." Terrorists are no real threat to our country, and even as a threat to American lives they come in somewhere between getting hit by lightning and dieing of the flu.

Terrorism, for it to succeed, needs the cooperation of the media. They know they can't really kill that many people, but they also know if they can kill a relatively few people in the most dramatic way possible then the media will do their work for them. Think about the week following 911. How many times did you personally see the video of the planes crashing into the buildings? How many times did you see with your own eyes the buildings come crashing down? Now THAT'S drama! That's a story! And they milked it for all it was worth. It doesn't matter that objectively there are far more dangerous threats--if those more dangerous threats don't provide spectacular vido footage they will not be covered.

So terrorists seek to provide spectacularly gory video footage, and the media cooperates by gleefully airing such footage whenever they can. And the average person is left with the mistaken impression that terrorists are much more dangerous than they really are. It's the video footage that causes the fear, not the real threat.

Then if you have a President like GWB who is willing to play on peoples fears of the video footage we find ourselves in the situation we are in now.

by Mystylplx 2007-10-27 12:08PM | 0 recs
Re: Consider terrorism...

I think the principal here is that people react emotionally to what they see and hear, but not to cold statistics. You can tell people all day long that 450,000 Americans die every year from tobacco, but that's just a number. If all 450,000 of those people had gathered in one place and died in a big fiery explosion which was caught on film they would react strongly to that though. But without video footage it just isn't real to most Americans.

And it's the media that chooses what stories to run, what videos to show. As far as I can tell their only real bias is towards the dramatic--they're always looking for the 'story' with the best ratings. I think that's why they've so obviously chosen Hillary as the annointed one--they're looking forward to four more years of Bill in the White House and all that that implies.

by Mystylplx 2007-10-27 12:28PM | 0 recs
Re: Consider terrorism...


you explain your reasoning quite well!

450K is just a cold statistic

but show a person dying of emphysema,
dependent on Oxygen Tanks for life --
well that is a visual that has emotional impact!

I hadn't quite realized how much
"the chase for the dramatic"
impacts our daily dose of News --
wow what a concept, thanks!

If you want News coverage -- strive for the emotional storyline,
seems to be the lesson.

Thanks to OJ too, I suppose,
for the slow motion Bronco chase
that started this change in Media focus.

Too bad OJ was so famous to begin with --
or the whole thing would have been a non-story,
and we may still be getting fact-based News content instead.

by jamess 2007-10-27 02:14PM | 0 recs
Re: Consider terrorism...

The slow speed Bronco chase, the fact of OJ's fame, but also the fact that his victim was a pretty blonde white woman. Ever notice that?

Statistically white women are the least likely segment of society to be the victims of murder (black men the most likely) so why is it that almost every nationally covered story of a murder or missing person involves a white woman? Better yet if she's blonde. Better yet if she's a child. When's the last time you saw a nationally covered story of a murder where the victim was a black man... unless the black man was already famous? Yet black men are overwhelmingly more often murder victims as compared to white women.

Or consider the differing coverage of airplane crash fatalities vs. automobile crash fatalities--we all have heard the stats which say that air travel is FAR safer than auto travel. Airline pilots are more likely to die in a trafic accident on their way to the airport than they are to die in a plane crash. But turn on the news and you'll hear much more coverage of plane crashes than car crashes. For a car wreck to make the news it has to be big and local, but if a plane goes down anywhere in the world we hear about it. Plane crashes are both more rare and more dramatic and thus... better stories. And the result is that people who get their world-view by watching the news are left with the impression that plane travel is more dangerous than car travel.

Then just imagine what that bias towards the dramatic does to other kinds of stories--stories on race relations are always reported in the most dramatic way possible, which is not a good thing for race relations in general. The media are always trying to fan the flames because this is their bread and butter--this is how they make a living.

So when it comes to politics we see the same pattern playing itself out. The media, consciously or unconsciously, are always looking for the most dramatic story. They loved Barack Obama early on because they felt he would make the race more dramatic, but when it came down to it they are looking for the nominee who will provide them with the most fodder down the road, and that's Hillary Clinton. Or maybe I should say that's Bill Clinton. He was very very good for the MSM. (they weren't good to him, but he was very good to them.) They remember well the media feeding frenzy which was the Bill Clinton administration and they want a return to those days. They want Bill Clinton back in the White House--they are salivating at the very thought.

And I suspect for most of them this is an unconscious process. It's just that in the backs of their minds they can't help lusting after the idea of Bill in the East Wing with nothing but time on his hands and all those pretty secretaries, maids, and interns wandering around...

by Mystylplx 2007-10-27 02:48PM | 0 recs
Great Diary !

Very thoughtful.

Compare to the BBC for example, the US media is so poor and un-professional, that most US reporters around the world claim to be British !

Think about it.


by win 2007-10-27 08:06PM | 0 recs
Re: Great Diary !

thanks win
for the feedback

I only hope that some news outlets  out there,
realizes there's a void for "hard news",
and steps in, in the same professional manner of a BBC

PBS is OK, but it too has been co-opted by the right wing, recently.

CSPAN well, I'm glad its there,
but really it puts me to sleep,
more times than it informs me.

there must be a news format out there
that actually works, and is profitable?

maybe the internet?

by jamess 2007-10-27 08:33PM | 0 recs
Re: Consider terrorism...

lol, I love the visual of the first husband, omg!

And your analysis of Media Motives, priceless!

Mystylplx, you must have some background in Journalism or Communication Theory
(me, Communications was my major)

Thanks for the lively discussion!

by jamess 2007-10-27 08:28PM | 0 recs
Re: An Amusing thing happened on the News the othe
Beating Clinton and the media wont be easy..I think the early four states present an media neutral zone though.
I don't think the media will be able to affect what happens in Iowa.
by joachim 2007-10-27 10:06PM | 0 recs
Thanks all for the great feedback, here's an idea

Elections SHOULD be turned into Interview Appointments!
Because America is really hiring its next CEO.

Elections should be about Qualifications & Policies & Plans!
Not discussions about Alpha Males and Earth Tones;
Not resignation to Inevitability because some Mushy Polls say,
(in NH, 55% said they are still trying to decide !) ...

The typical Company would NEVER Hire someone
just because they sent in their Resume a 100 times ...

So why should Americans decide to back a Candidate
just because the Media has repeated a 100 times
someone is their Favorite Horse?

From what I recall most of the Media gave us this same "hard sell" --
the last few times with G. W. Bush --
and America Bought it -- Twice!!

Look how well that Promotional Campaign turned out!

Enough already! If a Pundit tells you something is a "foregone conclusion" --
RUN! ... as fast as you can in the other direction !

Because they probably have "a bridge" (in MN) to sell you too, OMG!
(or at least some important Ads from their many Corporate Sponsors)

by jamess 2007-10-28 09:47AM | 0 recs


Advertise Blogads