[oclug] OT: Harper is my enemy, but I despise falsehood in the media

[miden]

On Thu, 2006-08-17 at 20:48 -0400, Brad Barnett wrote:
> 
> There hasn't been anything tried for "god-knows-how-many-years". 

Have to disagree with that - I grew up listening to criticism of the
news media and developed certain 'atitudes' and ended up working on an
underground newspaper. I've listened to (and spouted) this same kind of
thing for more years (make that 'more decades') than I care to think
about.

>  Massive
> problems with the media just started within the last 15-20, and have crept
> up on us slowly.  Media mergers are a big cause of the problem, a MASSIVE
> one.  Most of the media is controlled by three boardrooms in this country.
> 
> That's wrong.

Very wrong... and how are you going to change it? 
> 
> Another problem is that media has become too sensationalized.

They saw how successful sensationalism can be and took it into the
newsroom. Why? Because the newsroom was an unprofitable sideline. They
simply produced a product that would sell. How are you going to talk
them out of doing that?

>   I think a
> strengthening of slander and libel legislation would be appropriate.

Yes.

>   We
> need to reverse court rulings that allow out of context speech to be used
> inappropriately, and the like.  Frankly, when I see the media attending a
> two hour conference with the PM as the speaker, I don't expect to see a
> single quote in an article about the same.  Especially when that quote is
> then used for an entire article refuting the same, even though said quote
> is entirely out of context.
> 
> None the less, as I stated before, talking DOES work.  Open discussion of
> issues has fostered robust change in this country, time and again. 
> Politicians are not the sort to come up with every path of change on their
> own.  People speak to their MPs, whom often bring information back to
> Parliament.  Typically one must find a "flash" point for change to occur,
> however.  That requires societal discussion on matters, and that requires
> talk.

I guess the jaded me comes out here - people talk about what they hear
about on the news (or read or whatever). Change is guided.

If you want to play an interesting game, take note the next time
something catches your interest or you find yourself developing a new
interest. Then watch to see how long before it shows up on some 'news'
show or in a newspaper (remembering that they only show what sells to a
broad audience). Then refuse to watch, read, listen to ANY news source
for a couple of months. You'll find, I predict, that you are moving more
and more out of sync with the people around you. Your views will seem
more and more idiosyncratic to those around you.

Even if you're more of an alternate news source type the same thing will
happen.

Now ask yourself - were those views or interests you noted in the first
part of this little game original to you or were they 'developed'? Were
they 'seeded' (dark conspiracy music here). Why would an interest you
thought was more or less peculiar to you start showing up in a 'news' or
lifestyles product? Astute reporters? How did it become so popular that
it would become an item in a news product produced by master marketers?

> Miden, democracy works, and quite well.  One must make sure, however, to
> not be enslaved by the Roman Games, and ignore what is happening around
> oneself...
> 

I agree that the system we have works well. I enjoy the benefits of it
every day. I just wish it worked the way we are taught to believe it
works.

My God, I AM seriously cynical aren't I?

-m