Honesty in Politics and Media

NLXSK1

NLXSK1

Well-Known Member
It is coming to light that Facebook's trending information may be heavily influenced by people who choose to acknowledge what is trending or suppress it. Some people are demanding transparency from Facebook and/or the policy to be changed.

I dont like hearing that a private company could be considered to be mis-representing what people are talking about on it's site. However, they are a private company. If I do not like their policy I can delete my facebook account and not use their site anymore.

On the flip side, information is coming to light that the Obama administration used the media to provide the public with an inaccurate if not deceitful account of the negotiations over the Iran nuclear deal. This I have a problem with as my government is not supposed to manipulate information to achieve the results they want. They are supposed to work for me.


Do you see a difference between the media and politics and the level of honesty required?
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
NLXSK1 said:
Pick a source.

I am not interested in playing your games. I am asking a general question. Do you believe that the government has a higher bar to meet than the media?

The source is your brain.
Click to expand...
I think they're both intimately connected. A good argument could be made that American mainstream media - that is, all the outlets owned and controlled by one of the six major media companies - Comcast, Disney, NewsCorp, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS effectively acts as the de-facto propaganda wing of the government. Both entities have close interests.

Since the media has a powerful influence throughout society, they should be held to a high standard, same thing with the government, neither of which do a very good job of meeting it, hence the rise of new media and anti-establishment sentiments.
 
Mr Hyde

Mr Hyde

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I think they're both intimately connected. A good argument could be made that American mainstream media - that is, all the outlets owned and controlled by one of the six major media companies - Comcast, Disney, NewsCorp, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS effectively acts as the de-facto propaganda wing of the government. Both entities have close interests.

Since the media has a powerful influence throughout society, they should be held to a high standard, same thing with the government, neither of which do a very good job of meeting it, hence the rise of new media and anti-establishment sentiments.
Click to expand...
I can agree with this one :P.
 
T

ThickStemz

Well-Known Member
Padawanbater2 said:
I think they're both intimately connected. A good argument could be made that American mainstream media - that is, all the outlets owned and controlled by one of the six major media companies - Comcast, Disney, NewsCorp, Time Warner, Viacom, CBS effectively acts as the de-facto propaganda wing of the government. Both entities have close interests.

Since the media has a powerful influence throughout society, they should be held to a high standard, same thing with the government, neither of which do a very good job of meeting it, hence the rise of new media and anti-establishment sentiments.
Click to expand...
I will agree to an extent.

Like with Isis they say... 'should we invade and bomb them or should we just bomb them' as if those are the only two options.

But the media isn't alligned with the government. They're alligned with ideologies reflected by certain parts of that government.

There is right wing media and left wing media. Of the 6 companies you mentioned, their management overwhelmingly supports left wing politics. Do you honestly think they give Republicans and Democrats equal treatment?

That said, the intent of the first amendment was for the media to be a watch dog on those with power. They are largely in derrilection of that duty. The irony is although that is their duty, the free rights of media allows them to be homers for one side or the other.

And I want to add, good for you for not just arguing from authority, and using your own words. You have interesting shit to say. I can go read those other people, I like it when you actually speak your mind.
 
Padawanbater2

Padawanbater2

Well-Known Member
ThickStemz said:
I will agree to an extent.

Like with Isis they say... 'should we invade and bomb them or should we just bomb them' as if those are the only two options.

But the media isn't alligned with the government. They're alligned with ideologies reflected by certain parts of that government.

There is right wing media and left wing media. Of the 6 companies you mentioned, their management overwhelmingly supports left wing politics. Do you honestly think they give Republicans and Democrats equal treatment?

That said, the intent of the first amendment was for the media to be a watch dog on those with power. They are largely in derrilection of that duty. The irony is although that is their duty, the free rights of media allows them to be homers for one side or the other.

And I want to add, good for you for not just arguing from authority, and using your own words. You have interesting shit to say. I can go read those other people, I like it when you actually speak your mind.
Click to expand...
The sole motivation for the six companies I mentioned is money, so they will support whatever narrative kowtows the corporate line. Media is a business, they're in it for the ratings. Those ratings don't come without access, the access comes at a cost, that cost is impartiality and objectiveness. As the tobacco industry/climate change "debate" attest to, all that's needed for corporatism to continue to prosper is doubt. Injecting that doubt into the public arena is the primary job of establishment media.

Controversy makes money because it gets people tuned in, so establishment media is automatically incentivized to cater to that template.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Top