Thread: News and Reporters

Originally Posted by Wood Butcher

I've noticed that Today tonight on ch 7 have recently had stories on that I know are full of baseless bias crap. I is really sickening hearing what they are spewing out as fact and scary to think how many people that wouldn't know any better believe them.
Actually isn't that how religious radicals attract members

Don't mistake what you see on the commercial media "News" as anything actually relevant or even vaguely lining up with facts, it is entertainment for the sake of selling commercials and drawing viewership for their profit center.

Rarely - VERY rarely does it have relevance or use for intelligent people to make good decisions from. Sadly, too many people do

Two things to compare what you hear from them with:

"If it bleeds, it leads".
The old song "Dirty Laundry" (except when their pet politicians / causes are involved).

The commercial media here in Seattle probably has more of the things related two by those two lines and a surprising amount of things in the local news that are at least half a continent away.

Bloody useless and worse, bloody dangerous people controlling this medium. It *is* impossible to make good decisions from bad data...

I know there must be SOME good ones in there, but I can only imaging that their lives are a hell having to sell their morals and ethics to keep a job.

My roomie still checks it from time to time, but I just can't stomach them anymore.

Sigh... 'em.

Originally Posted by Gingermick

What about Maxine McKew
For those elsewhere, she was a reporter for the national broadcaster and is now running for parliment against the prime minister. She was one of the good ones.

But her political leanings came through in her interviews with pollies....
If she was good depends on which side of the political fence you sit on ...me ?? shoot the lot pollies and journos .....
Pete

Originally Posted by Wood Borer

I am cynical about all forms of media in Australia. They all seem to have hidden agendas and are quite selective about their reporting particularly the privately owned media.

Many use this for political purposes by reporting only one side of an argument. The words in the report are certainly true but only part of the story which means it is distorted. The reporters say they are not influenced by their managers however I suspect those who do not pull the company line are overlooked for promotions and are possibly first out the door if a downsizing was to happen.

Some articles refer to what "he" or "she" or "they" said without any prior or post reference to that source. It seems that the article was edited to make space for an advertisement and was not checked for it's completeness or continuity.

It's all very well to hit off at kids who lack spelling or written communication skills, let's start with the media who are the first to report on the lack of skills by the kids.

Couldn't have put it any better myself except to perhaps put paragraph 1+2 a little more bluntly

"We are only being told what they want us to know" as a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing - ensure that the populace has none.

Originally Posted by fxst

But her political leanings came through in her interviews with pollies....
If she was good depends on which side of the political fence you sit on ...me ?? shoot the lot pollies and journos .....
Pete

I think one of the requirements for a good journo/reporter is impartiality, on that basis Maxine McKew failed the test.

It is interesting to see how often the ABC proclaims loudly how "unbiased" they are, yet show me one Liberal politician who is ex-ABC, bu there are any number of ex-ABC journos now in politics for the ALP (think Alan Carpenter-WA, Gail Martin-NT, Maxine McKew-NSW and the list goes on).

Personally, I would think it is impossible to be impartial/un-biased, we all see the world through own coloured glasses, whatever that colour might be.

I would say that SBS comes the closest to giving an un-biased view.

As for the commercial media, why complain about them, do as I do and don't watch their rubbish produced for the lowest common denominator.

Originally Posted by Bob38S

"We are only being told what they want us to know" as a little knowledge can be a dangerous thing - ensure that the populace has none.

1984

Originally Posted by fxst

But her political leanings came through in her interviews with pollies

Never noticed. Perhaps the political leanings of the listener came through. When commenting on percieved bias one must be aware that bias is always present on both sides. If you listen you are placing your own bias on what you hear. I neve saw her go easy on a leftie though. I should get back to work. Smoko is over
I would agree that Phillip Adams' political leanings are shoved through, but he's not on telly.

Originally Posted by Gingermick

What about Maxine McKew

She has to be the greatest example of a news host to ever have the greatest political bias in every single one of her interviews. Her white haired offsider, at least he presents both sides.

Really, if you want non-political news then SBS is the only news service that gives this and really presents news from both sides of the fence. The commercial networks haven't got a clue, nor do they knwo what "news" is. "Coming up tomorrow at 6:00 we'll tell you what... " that's current affairs not news, nor is news what X AFL player did when he last sat on the toilet seat.

I think one of the requirements for a good journo/reporter is impartiality... we all see the world through own coloured glasses, whatever that colour might be.

I don't have a problem with that.... I'll make my own decisons based on what I draw from various sources.

I know that a presentation of the facts will be slanted by the medium through which the reporter views the world.... the medium being that grey matter which is filled with biases and personal viewpoints.

What I would like is an attempt to present "what has happened", as it really is unimportant for a reporter to only present their version of "fact".

For example:
in the beginning of the current war in Iraq... it would have been important to show the effect of the bombardment on the people living in Iraq. That would have been an important reality to present to those of us that were considering how we viewed the events that were occuring.
Of course, that was not shown as there was an acceptance of the need to manage what parts of the reality was shown.... in order to guide the public's thoughts down a particular path - support for the troops/nation/decision.

George Orwell, in his "Politics and the English Language" had the primary purpose of identifying political speechwriting as a source of the abuse of language....
.... and the effect is that political speechwriting serves to shield the public from the realities of war in order to support the aims of the political majority....
.... thus defenceless villagers are bombed from the air and ripped apart....
and this is described as "pacification" or explained as "every attempt is made to minimise collateral damage and still achieve the war objective"

This is not a criticism of that military action..... just being used as an example.

So, the question is ....
"Do I appreciate the deliberate refusal to show the actual reality in order to manipulate my response to events?"

No... and thats the 'big' issue....

Now, where the hell does "A Current Affair" and "Today Tonight" fit into news/reporting/journalism.... well I know where it should be fitted.... straight back up the putrid back passage it came from.... no bloody excuse for it.

I must at least give Maxine credit...instead of a greg 'I want a safe seat' combert she elected to have a go atr the shrubs seat. If rudd and co want to win the election they should be standing blokes like combert and shorten et al in either marginal or liberal seats to give them a chance. To remove a sitting member in a safe seat only changes the members name ....not an increase in seats which is needed to win any election.
Sorry Gingermick I dont go for either party I go for the policies when announced so my bias is not there as yet.
enough said as it is now way off topic and heading to the orange room I reckon. Bye til next week sometime
Pete

when the goverment is one of the biggest advertisers in the media ,and consumisem is the system we use and fear is the easest emotion to conrol ,you get what you get

Originally Posted by Clinton1

Now, where the hell does "A Current Affair" and "Today Tonight" fit into news/reporting/journalism....

It doesn't, never has and never will.

It is not news nor is it current affairs but a soap style magazine aimed at the ignorant masses with stories like diet fads, neighbours from hell, gossip and the latest underwear to titilate the viewers.

All designed to get the maximum ratings so they can charge a premium on their advertising rates.

Then again that is the same with commercial TV news as well, prostituting themselves for the ratings and advertising dollars.


Peter.

Originally Posted by Sturdee

with stories like diet fads, neighbours from hell, gossip .

And the one about the bloke who ripped some old bird off $50 bucks. National importance that

I've given up on TV, print, and most corporate newssites. I've taken to listening to ABC Radio National while in the shed

Originally Posted by Iain

Tim Bowden??

Hugh Lunn.