[Vision2020] Dramatic Changes In Media

Tim Lohrmann timlohr at yahoo.com
Sat Aug 7 18:17:30 PDT 2004

Seems like the only thing that persists is your getting up on the wrong side of bed again. Always in such a mood.     
Just can't seem to chill at all can we?  
Oh well. 
First of all, I DID see the portion where you said Berger was exonerated. 
What YOU must have missed is the portion of my post where I mentioned that the spokesperson for the Archives said that the WSJ had misreported the situation and that she couldn't comment on the investigation of Berger because it was "ongoing." 
If you're so opposed to the profit motive/capitalism in journalism, media concentration, etc. etc. then why do you take the WSJ's reporting as unquestioned gospel? 
When I said 'thing haven't changed' I was referring to the sensationalism aspect of your critique, not the concentration part. 
As you may know, it wasn't THIS era of journalism that gave rise to the expression "yellow journalism." In the early part of this century and the 1800's as well there were many dailies printing many editions. The problem is that many of these were eager to print details of the latest murder, scandal, and whatever else of little or no hard news value that they could splash across the front page.
The preoccupation of many media outlets on the same sort of stories such as the ones I mentioned before---Kobe Bryant, Scott Peterson, the Hacking murder, etc etc.
I agree 100% with you on the concentration of media ownership, and I said as much in my last post. 
I guess you neglected to read down the portion of my post in which I mentioned that good old fashioned anti-monopoly/anti-trust legislation is what we needed.
I couldn't agree more with your critique of FOX news, but I don't think they're any worse or better than CNN. 
At least FOX has never had US intelligence psyops interns in their studios as CNN has. 
See: http://www.counterpunch.org/cnnpsyops.html
Your pointing out that in a democracy the government is "supposed" to represent the people is amusing. 
Sure it is. The US Congress is not 'supposed' to represent the interests of big contributors ahead of their constituents.
The Court systems are 'supposed' to give everyone a fair shake regardless of whether or not he/she is represented by the "dream team" or a public defender.
The president is 'supposed' to always tell the truth and follow the spirit of the Constitution.
And the ivy league elitists at PBS are 'supposed' to be fair and impartial. 
It would be a wonderful world if everything operated the way it was 'supposed' to, wouldn't it? 
And you ask if  I'm living on an "asteroid?."  
I mentioned in both my posts that I'd like to see less concentration of media ownership. I thought you'd agree with that.
Or would you rather have the media concentrated in the ultimate monopoly of government ownership?
"Hi, this is the evening transmission from your state information agency, heavy fighting was reported on several fronts in Eurasia today as...."

Tbertruss at aol.com wrote:
Tim et. al.

Your reading problem appears to persist.  Have you read the Wall Street Journal article printed last week that I mentioned previously that contains the content suggesting that Sandy Berger has been exonerated?  I suspect not.  You are too busy insisting he must have been guilty of something.

As to this comment:

"Since papers have been sold and distributed itt's been the sensational that sells. And  things haven't changed since the 1800's."

What planet do you live on?  The cool alternative KUOI asteroid?

US media in the past 40 years has changed dramatically.  There is far more centralization and corporate control of content based on the bottom line in the news rooms of newspapers and TV networks.  Consider what has happened to CBS news, once one of the most respected news gathering and reporting outlets, now gutted.  Read former CBS news anchor Walter Cronkite's commentary on this subject.

The rise of Fox News is an example of what I am talking about.  In the 2000 election on election night, when Fox News broke the story that Bush was leading in Florida when Gore had already been reported the winner, all the other news networks followed this lead.  Why?  Had they independently verified the truth?  No.  They were losing audience share, so they switched their story also to gain viewers.

Fox News has changed the TV news reporting landscape with its flashy infotainment style, with other Networks (CNN, MSNBC, etc.) copying this approach.

When I had Direct TV, I often watched the Canadian news network, because it was obviously less hyped, commercial and biased.

Yeah, right, Tim.  Those "government" media outlets are so unreliable!  

I suppose given your political bias it won't make any difference to point out that the government in a Democracy is supposed to represent the people?

The CBC in Canada is an excellent source of news, in my opinion.

Ted Moffett

List services made available by First Step Internet, 
serving the communities of the Palouse since 1994. 
mailto:Vision2020 at moscow.com

Do You Yahoo!?
Tired of spam?  Yahoo! Mail has the best spam protection around 
-------------- next part --------------
An HTML attachment was scrubbed...
URL: http://mailman.fsr.com/pipermail/vision2020/attachments/20040807/95fd8301/attachment-0001.htm

More information about the Vision2020 mailing list