Does the media (at large) reflect or dictate public opinion?
 

Some would argue the media is a powerful (and somewhat malevolent) force in determining public opinion, politically or sociologically. Others would argue that political discourse has to originate somewhere (i.e. the public), and newspaper sales are reflective of key issue relevance. Any thoughts?

Oh Jebus this looks like a grad school dissertation.

I think people read and hear what they want to and tend to gravitate towards the sources of information that reinforce their beliefs. There is a reason that Faux news did not show the famous pictures of the soldier’s caskets. Whether or not they wanted to follow along with the wishes of UU, they realized that their viewers would not approve.

You're in England, right? You may not know about this, but a couple summers ago there was a huge amount of coverage of shark attacks in the US. It was like there was an epidemic. But statistically, that summer was identical to every other summer that came before. There was no increase in shark attacks. They scared a lot of people and hurt a lot of tourist towns. So yeah, the media definately has power to move society in a particular direction.

Yes, of course the media is a great facilitator for scaremongering/hype etc, but does this constitute opinion ?

A lot of people still believe that Gore claimed that he invented the internet.

I think he actually was quoted as saying that. Of course, he misspoke. He knows he didn't invent it and corrected himself later.

He coined the stupid phrase "information superhighway" I beleive. And was a very geeky technical oriented guy compared to the overwhelming majority of politicians at the time.

Sure it's opinion. "Sharks are a threat to you. You should fear sharks more than yo have been." It's not political opinion, but it's opinion.

He DID! I saw it all happen, right there on SNL, MAD TV, Letterman, Conan,


wait .... oh wait .... hold on .....


-sm

Gore did (and as much has been said, repeatedly by those involved in it's early days) have a signifigant role in pushing it around washington.

My mum works with the Refugee Council in the UK and one of the things they have to do almost constantly is try to balance out the llies that are printed about Asylum seekers in the media. The attitudes of the British Public to Asylum seekers was shown in a very interesting poll.....There were a great deal of commonly held misconceptions which had come ( or so it certainly seemed) mainly from the tabloid press.

If you spend anytime amongst the asyylum seeker and refugee communities in the UK I doubt you would have much doubt that the tabloid media can have a damaging effect. I have watched very closely the sea change which the council is attempting to effect and its a slow process. I have seen some feel good stories on local news and in newspapers which I know are trhe Council's doing in an attempt to stem the tide of anti asylum seeker sentiment.

In the UK the media have sold so many fearbased stories of brtian being "swamped" by bogus asylum seekers that the general temperature of the country is so against them that the very words "asylum seeker" carry with them them a massive stigma. There is little kindness shown to people who have struggled across half the world to get to a place of safety, and the word "Bogus" slips to the front of most people's minds when they hear "asylum seeker" because there has been a diet of such caveats for 20 years in the national media.

Interestingly in the Poll, it was discovered that the people displaying the most ignorance and hostility on this issue were the young. People under 20 did not come out looking good. I wonder if this is because they have had an anti asylum agenda in the main news media throughout the entirety of their lives?


Poll gauging public attitudes to asylum seekers

I feel one of the biggest threats to Democracy in the western world is media consolidation. One only need look at Britain to see what I mean, the land where papers open barrak for candidates in elections. It gives those that control the media incredible clout.

I think he actually was quoted as saying that.

"During my service in the United States Congress, I took the initiative in creating the Internet. I took the initiative in moving forward a whole range of initiatives that have proven to be important to our country's economic growth and environmental protection, improvements in our educational system."

Close, but not quite.

Do I think media reflects public opinion? You bet! Remember the thousands of US supporters that showed up when they pulled the statue of Saddam down?

http://fox.org/~vince/photos/out/statue.jpg
Whew! Look at 'em all!

See, the media's photoshopping of the photograph to add in more people than there actually were shows they reflect US public opinion of US support, or at least try to feed it.

That image that only shows a moment in time, so it's proof of nothing... and you swallowed it.

that's a double edged sword UT.

Hey, all I'm saying is that it looks nothing like the ground photos that were published. And others have also noticed and noted photographic evidence.

The original site with photos that led to the questioning. The long arm guy and man appearing twice I will dismiss, but the repeating artifacts in the background are just bad. The edge of the photo where the editing took place looks pretty obvious to me.

So your proof of the lack of a crowd is a photoshopped photo of a crowd?

why else would it be photoshopped

Can you think of a reason (without reading the original site, which offers one)?

So your proof of the lack of a crowd is a photoshopped photo of a crowd?

Its simple -- just like a scientific theory.

A trick the media uses all the time is to give the impression of a large crowd by limiting their video and photos to a small collection. When the Bucs won the Super Bowl, they used the trick, and failed, by talking about a "huge crowd" in Ybor city, partying. The camera man accidentally zoomed out and, low-and-behold, there was a small handful of drunks on the corner. No massive crowd.

Now you're suggesting to me that with this major event, the toppling of Saddam's statue, that the only photos and videos are of this huge crowd from the ground while all the photos from building tops just happen to be of a moment in time when there happened to be a small crowd. I find this something that is a bit difficult to swallow. Find me the photo of the huge crowd from above and I'll give the event more credibility. But right now the only unedited/wide angle shots are of small crowds.

Find me the black swan.

I didn't suggest it was a major event - you did. Where did you get that narrative?

Can you think of a reason (without reading the original site, which offers one)?

Its hype and publicity. There is no other reason to edit the photos other than to make the news sell because they have the photo.

http://sf.indymedia.org/uploads/eve2.jpg

The problem is that in changing the news in order to make it sell, it changes what people get out of the news and horribly distorts the actual events that take place in our world. If this paper had published a photo from above, it wouldn't have sold as well. Would people buy a paper with a photo that showed only a small outpouring of support for the occupation? For some reason, a lot of people don't want to hear that.

Now I'm not saying that the Iraqi people don't support our troops -- I know some of them do, but the editing of these photos and the selected camera angles give everyone the opinion that the Iraqis really really REALLY love us when the truth is that a comparitively small group came out to whoop and yell as the statue tumbled. We won't call it a "lie", but it sure was a great stretch. And even though their manipulation of events is nothing new this year, five years ago, or three decade ago, the truth, and your opinion, have been distorted by the media and its selected perspective.

I didn't suggest it was a major event - you did. Where did you get that narrative?

Come on, UT, it was replayed over and over again on the news for more than a week. It was the symbol of an evil dictator falling and will be remembered by people for the rest of their lives. Even a month later they kept showing that hunk of pot metal hitting the concrete and used it as proof that US troops were being welcomed with open arms.

Where did you get the narrative that it was a crowded event?

Where did you get the narrative that it was a crowded event?

Foxnews article detailing the streets flooding with cheering people of which I don't remember seeing any pictures. Soldiers kissing babies? Men running around in their underwear? Good lord, what a party that must have been! All of Baghdad must have been outside celebrating! And again, the article does not lie one bit, but it gives the strong impression that the crowds were huge. Initially I was under the impression that the crowds around the statue celebrating were very large, just as a lot of people did. Ask anyone around you if they remember the statue coming down and then ask them how many Iraqis they remember cheering and celebrating around it. I just asked a co-worker who responded, "I remember a lot. A thousand?"

Many people think the media is skewed left while many say it is skewed to the right. I think its skewed for hype, regardless of the buttons it pushes in you in order to get you to buy or watch it. In fact, right now a lot of people are under the impression that the Iraqis completely hate us and that we should, in no way, continue to be in Iraq. But a mere one-thousand people (out of an entire country) with RPGs, bombs, and rifles who have a dislike for the United States can easily give anyone that impression when you see it piped through a camera set to scary narration.

But man, does that stuff sell.

That article only mentions the term "flooding" once and it's not referring to the statue event.

[/b][/quote] In fact, right now a lot of people are under the impression that the Iraqis completely hate us and that we should, in no way, continue to be in Iraq. But a mere one-thousand people (out of an entire country) with RPGs, bombs, and rifles who have a dislike for the United States can easily give anyone that impression when you see it piped through a camera set to scary narration.

But man, does that stuff sell. [/b][/quote]

Ever surf some of the Middle East/Islamic sites on the web? This is a fairly typical statement made by an Iraqi on a discussion board for the Middle East:


"The occupation is not "benign;" we are being killed everyday by trigger-happy young soldiers. The conditions in Iraq now are worse than during the sanctions. We have, after 10 months, less electricity, no telephones, much less drinking water, more crimes, less security... etc. Those who say it is bengin are not in Baghdad and they did not see how bad things are. If they visited Baghdad, they were the guests of Bremer. They only saw the airport, the Rasheed hotel and the CPA offices.

Iraqi engineers are not allowed to plan for the reconstruction of Iraq or participate in the decision-making proccess. Third-grade engineers from Bechtel are the ones who are running the show. Bechtel is the only show in Town!

We were probably afraid to talk about one person, Saddam. (You know me, Felicity; I could not keep my mouth shut.) Now we are afraid to talk about all the 25 people runing the IGC as well as Bremer and the Americans. "

You can find not only a 1,000 more statements like this one, but 10,000 more. I think its pretty safe to say the Iraqi's hate us.

I couldn't agree more. Hype (read: fear) forces a consolidation of opinion (safety in numbers). The media keeps people afraid so their consumption is perpetual, and often unquestioning. Look at any group of like-minded individuals bred on fear: KKK, BNP... do they really understand their objectives? Or is it the security of homologous thought (and don't get me started on religion) that provides a basis for opinion? In other words, the media provides the fear that in turn leads to the formation of an opinion, rather than dictating actual opinion. The horse can be led to the water, but whether it drinks or not is down to how thirsty it perceives itself to be... (or whether it thinks it has been contaminated by terrorists).

It's skewed for MONEY!!! Money, money, money. I'm reminded of a Bloom County strip where my namesake is lamenting how slow things are for his law office. He hits upon a solution: "What this town needs is TWO lawyers!" One news outlet by itself would probably be fine. Once you get more than one and they're competing with each other for eyeballs, you've got trouble.

I knew I'd heard that name somewhere before! I miss Bloom County! (sighs) But when it comes to only one news outlet, as Bill the Cat might have said, "Pfffft! Ack!" What if the owner of the single outlet was a leftie? Or a neo-conservative? Or a born again Christian? Or a Moslem? Talk about skewed information! I think we need lots of papers and TV news sources, so we can get a better spectrum of coverage.

What we need are honest journalists - everybody's an op-ed these days.

Funny, while the schools are taking opinions (theories) out of the curriculum leaving only isolated "factoids," the journalists are taking the facts out of the news leaving only opinion masked as information.

There is an informational film called "Myth of the Liberal Media." While it is a decidedly left film (the apologist himself, Chomsky, makes an appearance) it makes some valid points and raises some good questions.

http://www.thinkandask.com/news/mediagiants.html

The modern liberal agenda, loosely interpreted, isn't one that would support such aggregations of power outside of their (read as governmental) control.

A good example is NBC, which is owned by GE, one of the largest suppliers of military ordinance to the US military.

Yet, even with a wide variety of news providers, they still have to compete for actual viewers. They are going to report, and skew reports based on what gets viewership. Beyond that, they are going to look at what their competitors are doing successfully, and try to find a way to incorporate that into their own programming.

What this creates is a growing homogenization of news across almost all providers, and ultimately the same skewed reporting that comes when a single entity reports on the news.

Now, granted, there will be niche players who provide more and varied information, but their access and appeal to mass audiences will be very limited.

the journalists are taking the facts out of the news leaving only opinion masked as information.

I think we have honest journalists but I don't think the drive that of the editors, or the editors' bosses, is in the right direction. Through the filtering done by the upper levels in order to make something sell we see news reporting that is very skewed. I don't think the person behind the microphone or keyboard is responsible for that. It used to be very obvious how many stories we never saw in the US thanks to this filtering -- all you had to do was browse to www.bbc.co.uk and click on the "Americas" button. Stories taking place right down your street made UK headlines while they didn't even get a whisper in any of our papers or our television news.

Now its all the same agency despite the seperating ocean, so it all looks the same.

What I really hate about media right now is the skewing of public opinion because of "quick release stories" -- the stuff that gets released without any fact checking and is then found out to be wrong. Does the media retract it later? Yes, in a tiny little column in the back pages that no one notices.

Here is the list of seven television stations who will censor basic facts only because they fear we might appreciate the lie predicated by the president:
WGGB 40 Springfiled MA http://www.wggb.com/feedback/feedback.htm
KDNL 30 St Louis MO www.abcstlouis.com (site is under construction)(one way to avoid viewer response)
WCHS Charleston WV programming@wchstv.com http://www.wchstv.com/about.shtml
WLOS 13 Asheville NC http://www.wlos.com (Click on 'feedback')
WXLV 45 Greensboro/Winston-Salem, NC www.abc45.com (took down their web site)
(WHNS in Greenville NC will instead air it)
WSYX 06 Columbus OH http://www.wsyx6.com (Click on 'Contact Us')
WEAR 03 Pensacola FL http://www.weartv.com (no e-mail; call 800-274-WEAR )


To say that Koppel's report was biased or "was unjustified in its pessimism" is exactly what right wing extremists said about reports from Vietnam. In fact, stories from Time Magazine reporters were intentionally changed (rewritten in New York and Washington) because top Time Magazine management did not like the truth. Yes Time Magazine intentionally censored their own resporters articles because those reports did not agree with presidental propaganda.

Koppel told it as it went down. We now know his reports to be quite accurate. However look at who runs Sinclair News - disciples of Pravada? "All the news that is fit for you to hear"? Or is it "We make it simple"? What happened to "the truth, the whole truth, and nothing but the truth"? We cannot be trusted with the truth? Now that describes Sinclair Broadcasting - anti-American and proud of it.

The news ratings at ABC30 in St. Louis were so bad that they scrapped their news department a couple of years back. That station hasn't been quite right since it switched affiliates (it was a Fox affiliate until 1995).

Interestingly, one of Sinclair's radio stations in St. Louis (105.7, The Point) broadcasts Howard Stern.

I watched some of that Nightline tonight.

(missed parts because I was kind of in the middle of commiting a religious personage.)

Frankly, it wasn't all that big a deal. I thought that any effectiveness the reading of the list might have had was lost ... lacked the power of reading the names on the AIDS quilt (I have done this).

Having Koppel read the names ... with his oh-so-even moderator voice ... took the humanity out of it. It became more of "just a list" than if it were printed.

Also the commercial breaks really interrupted the flow.

I would say in the UK there is a fairly strong tradition of good journalism particularly on the BBC and in one or two of the national papers ( The Guardian, The Observer, The Mirror)

We have two very strong nightly news programmes ( Newsnight on th bbc and Channel 4 News on independant tv) which regularly hold the government of the day to account.

Mostly I think they do a damn good job of bringing the world's events to my door.

Investigative journalism is alive and well in the UK as evidenced recently by two stories which spring to mind for me. One was the undercover opoeration carried out by the Mirror newspaper in which a journalist posed as a recruit and was taken on to work for a "reception centre" in which asylum seekers were being held until their cases had bene heard. .....Thanks to this journalist's excellent reportage the nation was made aware of the appalling mistreatment of some of society's most vulnerable and damaged people ( refugees)

The other story which springs to mind is the undercover operation by a bbc journalist who got into the police training academy and secretly filmed his fellow recruits ( and officers) engaging in appalling levels of racism. Some of the stories these people told whilst they thought the camera no camera was present were seriously disturbing and have opend a lot of people's eyes to the danger of racist policing.

On the flip side to this....we have some of the less dependable types of journalism. The shock and titilate brand of story telling which doesnt check the facts and peddles fear. Some of the less pleasant tabloids tend to engage in this and the ITV news leaves a lot to be desired.