-
Get involved.
We want your input!
Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.
After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.
After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/
Thanks in advance and have fun!
RadioDiscussions Administrators
Feckless or Reckless
- Thread starter Element9
- Start date
O
OttoM
Guest
That's an easy one.
Two reasons: The rise of the entitlement generation (millennials) and our increasingly litigious society.
Two reasons: The rise of the entitlement generation (millennials) and our increasingly litigious society.
A
AndrewLawson
Guest
What does a "litigious society" have to do with the media alledgedly being lazy and timid? If anything, Sunshine Laws and litigation have helped reporters and researchers do their jobs and shed light on those who prefer to cut deals in the darkness.
As to "entitlements," seems the baby boomer generation (of which I am a member) is as prone to expecting entitlements from Social Security and the government as the millennials might be from their employers and families.
As to "entitlements," seems the baby boomer generation (of which I am a member) is as prone to expecting entitlements from Social Security and the government as the millennials might be from their employers and families.
B
Bob1370
Guest
The real question is whether those in management and editorial decisionmaking posiitons WANT to see aggressive investigative journalism practiced, or if they prefer simple clerks who process press releases from the political and financial establishment.
Many in the front offices of major media are active supporters of TPTB and feel they personally benefit from administration positions, therefore t's not in their interests to raise questions. Others are aware of risks to their jobs from too aggressive or inquisitive an approach to their jobs, so they regretfully but acquiescently pull their punches in the interest of professional and economic self-preservation.
It's funny...the current mindset of many (though fortunately, not yet all) of today's American journalists reminds me of what I observed among broadcasters in Moscow during a visit to Russia in 1989 at the twilight of the old Soviet regime.
Many in the front offices of major media are active supporters of TPTB and feel they personally benefit from administration positions, therefore t's not in their interests to raise questions. Others are aware of risks to their jobs from too aggressive or inquisitive an approach to their jobs, so they regretfully but acquiescently pull their punches in the interest of professional and economic self-preservation.
It's funny...the current mindset of many (though fortunately, not yet all) of today's American journalists reminds me of what I observed among broadcasters in Moscow during a visit to Russia in 1989 at the twilight of the old Soviet regime.
The laziness and timidity is a function of the pervasive group ownership.
Another Take
I'm beginning to think that it's not that the populace is devoid of voices, but that there are so many sources for news and information that most people suffer from information overload.
The advent of 24-hour news channels, the Internet, 24-hour news/talk radio, and blogs of every political stripe make it difficult to avoid the "big news story of the day", coming at you from multiple angles. Has anyone been able to avoid the results of the Iowa caucuses today? Is it remotely possible that you would have problems determining the positions of any of the candidates running for president?
The problem I see with media is that many reporters know that the facts are out there, and that everybody has access to them at the same time that the reporter does. In order to avoid being redundant, reporters now are after the "gotcha" story - the mis-statement, the misbehavior, the deviation from the party line or societal "norm". It doesn't even need to be current. People are dredging up - or being fed - statements from 20 years ago and reporting them as "news". Would you like to be taken to task today for every opinion that you held 20 years ago?
Nightly network newscasts are rarely a summary of the day's news. They're a traffic snarl of angular approaches to today's news. A big story gets a couple of lines. Then, the story becomes an intersection where multiple reporters and pundits collide as they come at the story from different - usually opposing - angles. The result is not an exposition of facts, it's a plethora of opinions, and viewers generally pick the one that reinforces their own point of view.
Everyone has their point of view confirmed by a reporter, pundit, or politician, which means that there's no reason to question or modify our own point of view, or look at other points of view as being reasonable. Opinions may be based too often on who presents them, and how much we like the source, as opposed to the actual facts of the story. News departments consider that "telling both sides of the story". I see it as "confirming both sides stories". I think that it may be the primary source of the divisiveness that we see throughout society, not just in the halls of our political institutions.
I'm ready for a return to the Joe Friday principle: "The facts, ma'am. Just the facts." Perhaps, if we can agree on what is factual, we can more precisely evaluate the opinions on how to proceed based on those facts.
I'm beginning to think that it's not that the populace is devoid of voices, but that there are so many sources for news and information that most people suffer from information overload.
The advent of 24-hour news channels, the Internet, 24-hour news/talk radio, and blogs of every political stripe make it difficult to avoid the "big news story of the day", coming at you from multiple angles. Has anyone been able to avoid the results of the Iowa caucuses today? Is it remotely possible that you would have problems determining the positions of any of the candidates running for president?
The problem I see with media is that many reporters know that the facts are out there, and that everybody has access to them at the same time that the reporter does. In order to avoid being redundant, reporters now are after the "gotcha" story - the mis-statement, the misbehavior, the deviation from the party line or societal "norm". It doesn't even need to be current. People are dredging up - or being fed - statements from 20 years ago and reporting them as "news". Would you like to be taken to task today for every opinion that you held 20 years ago?
Nightly network newscasts are rarely a summary of the day's news. They're a traffic snarl of angular approaches to today's news. A big story gets a couple of lines. Then, the story becomes an intersection where multiple reporters and pundits collide as they come at the story from different - usually opposing - angles. The result is not an exposition of facts, it's a plethora of opinions, and viewers generally pick the one that reinforces their own point of view.
Everyone has their point of view confirmed by a reporter, pundit, or politician, which means that there's no reason to question or modify our own point of view, or look at other points of view as being reasonable. Opinions may be based too often on who presents them, and how much we like the source, as opposed to the actual facts of the story. News departments consider that "telling both sides of the story". I see it as "confirming both sides stories". I think that it may be the primary source of the divisiveness that we see throughout society, not just in the halls of our political institutions.
I'm ready for a return to the Joe Friday principle: "The facts, ma'am. Just the facts." Perhaps, if we can agree on what is factual, we can more precisely evaluate the opinions on how to proceed based on those facts.
- Status