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

[Beestie]

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.

[Troubleshooter]

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.

[SamGrey]

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.

[Kitsune]

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.

[tw]

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 )

Sinclair stations won't air 'Nightline'
After the September 2001 attacks, officials at Sinclair stations were directed to read on-air statements supporting the Bush administration's efforts against terrorism. The move prompted internal objections by journalists at WBFF-TV, Sinclair's flagship station in Baltimore, after anchors there were told to read similar statements on the air. Company directors and executives have been frequent donors to Republican causes.

Koppel's early reporting during the invasion of Iraq in early 2003, when he was "embedded" with the U.S. Army's 3rd Armored Infantry Division, was unjustified in its pessimism, Hyman contended yesterday. "He's a guy whose credibility as an independent journalist is a little bit suspect to begin with," Hyman said. As of yesterday afternoon, Koppel had not agreed to an interview with Sinclair reporters, he said.

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.

[elSicomoro]

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.

[wolf]

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.

[DanaC]

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.