Information from the Mass Media

[Andy A.]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

All I was saying is that if you don't like something, you always have the option to just ignore it...
...If you don't agree to listen and don't like what you are watching, then you should turn on something else that does suit your fancy.

Sand-

The very point of this thread is that there is no real choice. I could switch from FOX to see the same worthless talking heads on CNN or MSNBC. If I wanted to, I could even hear the same talking heads with out having to see them on the radio. I could read their same columns in the new York times or Washington post.

Nor is it an option to stick my head in the ground and just ignore it. I have to know whats going on in the world. It means something to me. It changes what, why and how I live my life. A democracy with out a reliable media, and a populace that pays attention isn't worth the parchment it's laws are written on.

All the major (and major in the case means capable- no blog writer can fly a correspondent out to Iraq) have in effect 'sold out'. It's not analogous to a Mechanic. Or cars. Or different types of food. Every option given to us is as worthless as the last. And we are paying these people? It's insane. I can't help but be reminded of the last election.

Its so damned frustrating.
-Andy A.

[dubious elise]

Phil, I've got to say that I can't agree more. (on a sidenote, Beth, I promise promise promise that I will get that paper to you, its just a matter of time )

Sanddrag mentioned that you can always change the channel, Andy countered that it's all the same. I say, read a magazine. Once per week, Time or Newsweek will come out with at least a slightly more "all-encompassing" view of the situation. With pictures. And no talking heads. And Point-Counterpoint articles. And it is available in a gorgeous, convenient size that fits in most backpacks/hands. And, best of all, if the reader disagrees, they can either flip the page, give it away, or burn it to a crisp with a handy-dandy lighter.

I guess what always amazes me is that reporters get first dibs to a scene. A scene where they come in, no less, dressed well, and perhaps even with a fresh change of clothing or two, sporting bottles of water and "refreshments" for down time between filming. Is it shared? Not likely. Is there probably enough to go around to everyone? Perhaps not. Could the reporter give up trying to incite already upset citizens for just an hour or two and start helping them out instead? Yes.

I know that there are some reporters that do help in these situations, but a majority do not. For once, I'd love to see some of these folks just practice what they cry out for. If someone is dehydrated, give them your water. If they need help clearing debris, put away the cameras and get to it.

It's just a thought. Not everyone can see through the blinding glare of the TV screen into the real world.

[sciguy125]

One word: documentaries.

I just saw the second half of a documentary about Katrina. I'm not sure how they churned it out so fast, but they did. It was a wealth of information that was about as unbiased as you can get before you start simply putting up charts. It did answer a few of the questions I had.

One in particular was how often a categroy 5 comes around. Some scientists are of the opinion that we have entered an active phase for hurricanes. We are likely to see more of this magnitude in the near future. The reason I am willing to accept this information more than other "opinions" I have heard is that they have evidence. One guy had core samples showing that we are at the tail end of a 1500 year low period for hurricanes. Others had historical data showing a shorter term pattern in which we are entering an active period. This is a lot stronger than the guy that wanted to upgrade the levee system simply because it was only designed for a category 3. Well, he may have had this scientific evidence, but CNN (and the other networks) didn't bring it up.

The documentary also covered the human factor in this disaster. Something I was wondering about was triage. Why were there sick people that were not evacuated? Apparently, the sickest were taken out. I guess the rescue workers couldn't keep up. Unlike CNN that focused on the lack of help rather than the help that was being recieved, this documenatry showed both with equal opportunity. I was also a little irritated about the reporters running around showing the devistation without doing anything. I don't know whether the CNN reporters do anything off camera, but the documentary showed themselves helping people. In particular, he gave water to a sick man that was lying down in the triage area.

I only saw the last half of it, so I don't know what was in the beginning, but it seems that I found the medium that I was looking for. I watch a lot of documentaries, so I'm surprised that I didn't realize it before. I think we need more documentaries though. In general, I'm only interested in the evidence so that I can form my own opinion, but I guess that presenting substantiated opinions is alright.

I don't want to hear people complaining about the slow aid response unless they can back it up. If they can show me that things could have moved faster, within reason of course (we could spend $500 billion and recall our entire military to make anything happen), then I'll listen. If their only reason for complaining is that people haven't eaten for 4 days, then I don't care.

I really only want the facts. However, in light of what I have realized in the last hour, I guess you can present your opinions as long as you can back them up with reasonable evidence. "The media" seems to only present people's opinions without a real explanation of why they feel that way. I don't know whether this is because they are talking to people that don't have a real explanation or they just don't want to air it, but the problem exists. Unless the media changes its ways, we, the viewers, need to be careful of how we interpret the information that is presented to us.

[sanddrag]

Originally Posted by sciguy125

One word: documentaries.

And Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't biased? It all depends on who is behind the production really.

[sciguy125]

Originally Posted by sanddrag

And Fahrenheit 9/11 wasn't biased? It all depends on who is behind the production really.

Well, personally, I don't really regard Moore's works to be documentaries. (I guess I also want to lump Super Size Me in there) I view them to be more of a "cinematic essay" than a documentary. He goes into his story having something to say. Everything he presents is used as evidence for his point. More traditional documentaries merely follow a sequence of events that lead up to something or chronicle an event. They tend to present both sides of an argument. Last week, I saw something on the Science Channel where, after presenting each of their arguments, they alternated between scenes with two scientists calling each other quacks that are completely wrong.