Us Versus Iraq

Quote:

---

Originally posted by sara5564@30 May 2003 - 03:39
Of course, the greatest problem with any amount of information, particularly since the Internet, is that we suffer from information overload....

What this essentially means, is that whilst there is a wealth of viewpoints, stances, and opinions 'out there', the difficulty is differentiating the true from the not so true.

So...as the US is one of the most wired in the world...access to this information is relatively easy for those wishing to look...the problem of course is sifting through the chaff....essentially, we have to make our own minds up, and even if we think we are well informed, it can only be as far as our research to date combined with a few preconceptions.

Americans, Europeans....all have access to it....its the interpretation that is the issue and the problem. There will allways be those willing to take the side they are most comfortable believing, and those who are looking for a radical take...majority opinion is not necessarily the right one any more than the minority.

Ahh well......perception is as always.....subjective....I think therefore I have an opinion!

---

So guys, you stay up past my bed time, but after reading Sara's quote, I thought she summed up my point quite nicely and so I turned in.

Those who live in America, via the internet, have access to media from sources all over the globe and therefore it is just a matter of personal investigation. We are not over here in a box with a dem. speaker on the left and a reb speaker on the right, we have as many speakers as we chose.

Myfiles, I beg you to bear with me if I misunderstand you, I'm not a morning person. You seemed to be implying that our politcal homogeneity restricts the different perspectives our media sources will have on a subject. So instead of hearing about an event from the Rs and Ds, we would get several more points of view in your country.

It seems that 1 event with 5 different points of view and 5 different agendas, just leads you back to "filtering" additional data.

I would like to think news reflects reality and is not motivated by political or financial agendas, but alas.....

So back to the original poster, I have access to everything that he does via the internet, why does he think I am in the dark?

Ah-to sit back and merely read....

Beautifully done, one and all.

I would add only this:

In our two-party, media atrophied, homogeneous country, it seems we have an incredible amount of variety politically, culturally, and in our media, and unless I'm terribly mistaken, movements are afoot (afeet?) to accomodate more every day.

Quote:

---

Wasn't the BBC a goverment owned outlet altogether?

---

A popular misconception.

The government have no control over the BBC, except influence who is appointed Director General.


That appointment is via a multi-party committee, so no political party has any undue influence over the decision.

The BBC is financed, not by Taxes, but by the levy of an Annual License Fee to those that own Radios's and Televisons (even those that will never listen to a BBC broadcast)...thereby the government has no control over the purse strings either.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by Rat Faced@30 May 2003 - 08:53

Quote:

---

Wasn't the BBC a goverment owned outlet altogether?

---

A popular misconception.

---

I stand corrected.
Thanks for the clarification.

At least my misconception was popular. :P

:lol: :lol: :lol:

It is.

Its also annoying having to pay for 100's of channels you'll never watch/listen to....including the World Service and channels you cant even receive.


Personally, i think they should take advertising and COMPETE like everyone else.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 14:26
Have the big media corps of other countries achieved primacy by "biting the hand that feeds"?

I will also stipulate that as a whole the American populace is woefully underinformed about world affairs.
But, in our increasingly media saturated environment, who isn't?

---

yes, the basic dynamics apply to all corp media. But as i intend to get into, there is a difference twn a danish media corp, for example, and an american media corp. First, the US exports an enormous amount of their cultural industry to the rest of the world, its BIG business, and these corps operate on a huge scale. just as importantly, media corps are owned by or own other corps in entirely different industries. The GE/NBC example is the most often cited, and for good reason: GE is HUGE, so is NBC, and its naive to think that NBC editorial isn't affected by the corporate ties. This was clearly demonstrated in the jeffrey wygand/big tobacco event, to show another example at a different network, where CBS was restricted in its news reporting by corporate deal-making considerations. This is not an anomolous event.

on a different matter, i think some clarification is needed on the issue of information overload. clocker attributes "media saturation" to a growing ignorance, whereas others have cited the information explosion as improving the general level of understanding.

My own view is that the majority of the content of the information explosion has been more of the same. The internet is an important difference, because smaller, previously poorly organized groups are now much better able to create communities. But here we're talking about politically active types, not mr. joe six pack.

Mr and Mrs. joe six pack are passive media consumers, as are something like 80 to 90% of the population. They do NOT seek out alternative media or international media. They turn on the tube and watch whatever's there. simply because people have the *opportunity* to gather information from a wide variety of sources obviously doesn't mean that they actually do. And most don't.


Now, this is more or less true around the world, and not an american-specific phenomenon, but here we get into the political climate in the states, and the relatively narrow spectrum of political opinion, which is reflected in the mass media. I could start citing academic studies if you prefer, but this really isn't a very contentious statement, its accepted that european politics are much more varied....when was the last time the US had a coaltion government, for example?

more later.

Quote:

---

Originally posted by hobbes@30 May 2003 - 14:29
It seems that 1 event with 5 different points of view and 5 different agendas, just leads you back to "filtering" additional data.

I would like to think news reflects reality and is not motivated by political or financial agendas, but alas.....

---

first, i'd rather do the filtering myself than some institution, governmental or corporate or otherwise, which necessarily has institutional biases. I hardly think public debate can be enhanced by *narrowing* the spectrum of opinions competing in the marketplace of ideas.

Second, to suggest that news reflects reality is...just....crazy. Again, this is not a lefty idea, any media scholar worth his weight in trendy eyeglasses will tell you that news reality is a social construction. For example, there is a direct correlation between how much tv you watch, and your perceived risk of being a victim of violent crime. The heavy tv watchers have a horribly skewed perception, much worse than crime statistics bear out. But that's the reality they operate within. this is not limited to anecdotes: the world has far too many stories to report, so what ends up on the news follows a particular filtering process.

Okay Myfiles.

I have ceded two major points and your eloquence/reasoning/exposition has been impeccable.
But...
Where are we headed here?
If you'd like assert that the world is afflicted with a huge alphamale ape with a frighteningly persuasive Big Stick ( the US and WMD) I'll gladly cede you that point also.
And?
Let's hear a constructive proposal.
One that takes reality into account ( no linking of hands and singing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke...")

Okay?

Quote:

---

Originally posted by clocker@30 May 2003 - 16:50
Okay Myfiles.

I have ceded two major points and your eloquence/reasoning/exposition has been impeccable.
But...
Where are we headed here?
If you'd like assert that the world is afflicted with a huge alphamale ape with a frighteningly persuasive Big Stick ( the US and WMD) I'll gladly cede you that point also.
And?
Let's hear a constructive proposal.
One that takes reality into account ( no linking of hands and singing "I'd like to buy the world a Coke...")

Okay?

---

i thought i already made the assertion, and the response was, yeah prove it (ie, narrow, superficial media in USA). that's what i'm trying to do. Its not a simple topic, and it can't be addressed in 25 words or less. i'm fleshing out the systemic reasons why politics in general, and more specifically as regards this thread, the media, is more narrow, more superficial, less dependable.

This is not to say that the nation is bereft of dependable journalism from all points on the spectrum -- as often has been said, the USA has the best and worst of everything. My focus is not on the intellectuals/social elites but on the average american media consumer and the average american citizen. They are less informed of world events, largely due to media that are less rigourous, and less critical than that of western counterparts, ie the average news agency, average television show, average viewing habits, etc.

i'd say thats a mouthful, hopefully it qualifies as an assertion.

OOps, sorry, you're right.

By all means then, continue.
At your leisure, of course.

remember to breathe in, breathe out...
care to brush up on your Lamaze technique?