Medias
How do you explain the fact that the medias are so very powerful in Europe and the United States and have such a weak impact in Canada.
I am thinking about the last G8 summit where I was a volunteer and the world medias were shock not to have access to their leaders and said that they would remember it for a long time. In Canada it was not a big deal and the people around me said that they did not care about what reporters had to say because they were prima donnas.
Once upon a time reporters were respected and sometimes feared when it came about what they might write about you. What changed and why??
I am thinking about the last G8 summit where I was a volunteer and the world medias were shock not to have access to their leaders and said that they would remember it for a long time. In Canada it was not a big deal and the people around me said that they did not care about what reporters had to say because they were prima donnas.
Once upon a time reporters were respected and sometimes feared when it came about what they might write about you. What changed and why??
Comments
[ 06-30-2002: Message edited by: Dead Member ]</p>
You are exaclty right, I couldn't agree more.
Ever since Fox News showed up on the scene, the cable media has been nothing more than a complete circus. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all trying to outdo each other with their 'All star reporting', 'in depth analysis' controversial talk shows, and always trying to be the first to get the story. Also, they never let the facts get in the way of a good story either.
I think that the cable media really evolved in a few select moments.
The first was the Persian Gulf War when CNN showed it 'live'. Then was Oklahoma City when everyone was trying to cover the different angles. The election of 2000 was also crazy, and let CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC really duke it out to be the first to get the story. Finally, September 11 really changed the cable media industry, because while all eyes were on them trying to get the most information they could, they reported 'facts' as fast as they could blurt them out. It didn't matter if they were true or not, as long as they had it first.
I actually think it's very humorous that the Canadians secluded the world leaders from the press. I don't think that any one else could really get away with it without us even really hearing about it. Very interesting.
[QB]
The media is a powerful tool. It has stopped wars. It could just as easily start a war if we are not careful
The media is a powerful tool. It has stopped wars. It could just as easily start a war if we are not careful<hr></blockquote>
You mean like:
You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war.
William Randolph Hearst, newspaper guy, right before the Spanish-American War.
yeah that's not happening here in the US at all. We have choices!! like the Ralph Nader.
k
<strong>What are medias?</strong><hr></blockquote>
come on CofD, you know the medias: cd, foppy, jaz & zip disks and the like. and while we're on the subject why does everbody have such a mistust for them? i mean, sure i lost some files due to curruption a couple of times, but come on, it's really quite rare.
<strong>
come on CofD, you know the medias: cd, foppy, jaz & zip disks and the like. and while we're on the subject why does everbody have such a mistust for them? i mean, sure i lost some files due to curruption a couple of times, but come on, it's really quite rare.</strong><hr></blockquote>
lol
This is too weird for news reporting.
This look like an organized effort.
Could it be that many of the mass medias and many of the major events are controlled from a single source?
You know, like an arsonist started a fire, then screamed ?Fire! Fire1 Fire!? in order to make people panic, then afterward the originial arsonist played as the fire fighter in order to stopped the fire and after the fire's out he yelled ?The fire's out!?.
<strong>
You mean like:
You provide the pictures, I'll provide the war.
William Randolph Hearst, newspaper guy, right before the Spanish-American War.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Yes. Very much like that.
<strong>Ever since Fox News showed up on the scene, the cable media has been nothing more than a complete circus. CNN, MSNBC, and FOX all trying to outdo each other with their 'All star reporting', 'in depth analysis' controversial talk shows, and always trying to be the first to get the story. Also, they never let the facts get in the way of a good story either.
I think that the cable media really evolved in a few select moments.
The first was the Persian Gulf War when CNN showed it 'live'. Then was Oklahoma City when everyone was trying to cover the different angles. The election of 2000 was also crazy, and let CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC really duke it out to be the first to get the story. Finally, September 11 really changed the cable media industry, because while all eyes were on them trying to get the most information they could, they reported 'facts' as fast as they could blurt them out. It didn't matter if they were true or not, as long as they had it first.</strong><hr></blockquote>I'd add OJ to that.
But I wonder if mistrust of media didn't start before cable - like during the vietnam-watergate era. Public mistrust of gov't rose, but I wouldn't be surprised if mistrust of media rose at the same time. For every person who hated what the gov't was doing in those events, there was another person who hated the media for questioning the gov't.
I'd guess it's around that time that a belief in the "liberal media" became popular too. And that's probably when a dislike of reporters and the news started.
There must be some timelines of polls about journalists, but I couldn't find any with a quick look.