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.

[JoeXIII'007]

I totally agree with Sciguy's opinion: in short, the media has reached one of its lowest points in history when it comes to its coverage of the Hurricane. Sure, its bad, its really really bad, but when you have the mayor cussing up a worse storm on the news, victims screaming into the camera out of panic, clips of random violence and looting, and a lack of a big picture, there's a problem when you try and give people elsewhere who want true information a sense of what's really going on down there.

To add to that, I feel quite disturbed when reporters, victims, or other people ask authorities during conferences or random Q&A sessions questions along the lines of "Why, when we are the 'richest country in the world' and 'we have been able to get troops to Iraq immediately,' have we not had a more quicker response?" They ask those questions out of pure ignorance of the enormity of the disaster. They DO NOT UNDERSTAND that an entire infrastructure/city/system has been completely wiped out/shut down and flooded with water. It's not like we knew it was going to be like this, nor could the US place troops/emergency personelle there before a scheduled 'beginning of combat operations' so to speak.

[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.

[Amanda Morrison]

Originally Posted by Andy A.

Probably because its obvious when your doctor is incompetent, and not so obvious when you're just being lied to.

As an American, you have many rights. You have the right to vote for your president. You have the right to an attorney and to medical care in an emergency. You have the right to attend college, the right to worship whatever god(s) you wish, and the right to wear white socks with black shoes. You have the right to turn off the television, the right to not believe a word you hear, and the right to speak up about it.

I firmly believe the practice that we currently call 'politics' in relation to governmental affairs needs a new name, because that is simply too general and broad. EVERYTHING in life is politics. Your entire life is a choice - a choice to believe or denounce everything that is ever said to you. Don't believe in the predicate nominative or split infinitives? You may have to memorize what someone else says for the test next Thursday, but ultimately you are the one that makes the decisions.

I can't say I watch the news for more than the biggest updates, but I would miss a lot in my life if I didn't. We depend on mass communication to keep us in touch with a world that is up front, high tech, and on demand. Even so, there were people that didn't know a thing about September 11th, 2001 prior to the evening news later that day. My college professor at the time simply told us 'some bozo crashed a plane into some building' and continued on with class.

Everyone in this thread can express their opinions, but you will generally get the same response: Make your own decisions. I won't give you the old 'Don't believe everything you hear' line, but I will advise you, for all matters in life, to 'Evaluate everything you hear' instead. It will carry you far.