Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
With what seems obvious media bias, it is nice to see a methodologically sound study which confirms the bleeding obvious.
What shocks the most is just how bad the Guardian comes across in this study.
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
I agree with you that there is widespread bias in the media, though it seems difficult to prove intent, as in leaving out 'vital facts'. Which facts are vital in which cases is a judgment call, and the omiters can always play dumb.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 28th, 2018, 2:56 pm http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new- ... bour-party
With what seems obvious media bias, it is nice to see a methodologically sound study which confirms the bleeding obvious.
What shocks the most is just how bad the Guardian comes across in this study.
I'm not sure I would agree that this study is sound, though. I only read the summary, but it strikes me as very one sided.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
One sided??chewybrian wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 9:38 amI agree with you that there is widespread bias in the media, though it seems difficult to prove intent, as in leaving out 'vital facts'. Which facts are vital in which cases is a judgment call, and the omiters can always play dumb.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 28th, 2018, 2:56 pm http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new- ... bour-party
With what seems obvious media bias, it is nice to see a methodologically sound study which confirms the bleeding obvious.
What shocks the most is just how bad the Guardian comes across in this study.
I'm not sure I would agree that this study is sound, though. I only read the summary, but it strikes me as very one sided.
Because it only looked at bias against Labour?
Or because it did not find anything nice the media had to say about Labour? Surely that's the point?
- chewybrian
- Posts: 1594
- Joined: May 9th, 2018, 7:17 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Epictetus
- Location: Florida man
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
Well, I don't follow British politics, but, yes. Looking at bias against one side only makes it seems like they have an agenda.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 1:38 pm One sided??
Because it only looked at bias against Labour?
Or because it did not find anything nice the media had to say about Labour? Surely that's the point?
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
This all started in earnest with Murdoch in the 50s, who at the time boasted that he could get any candidate he wanted elected. While newspapers have always been biased - because why wouldn't the moguls try to suit themselves? - Murdoch completely threw out even a pretence of objectivity and lowered the bar for journalistic standards, and he continues to do so.
Similarly, Trump is lowering the bar of accountability in US politics - where the President no longer need declare his finances before assuming office nor separate business interests from office (he can just give it to his kids you mind until Daddy gets back). A POTUS can now grab women's vaginas and brag about it without an issue. They can sack the heads of investigations against them without reason. They can lie as blatantly as they like with impunity.
By the same token, the news today feels no obligation whatsoever to play fair. The only acknowledgement of journalistic ethics in any Murdoch outlet was Fox's laughably (horrifyingly?) Orwellian slogan "Fair and balanced".
It's an easy trick. Find a structure that operates via self regulation and self imposed moral standards and exploit the hell out of them for being so soft and gullible.
So now, in Australia, we have all of our main regional papers plus the Daily Tele plus The Australian all being Murdoch and the hard right, pushing their coordinated campaigns in lockstep - 60% of readership all up. That, unsurprisingly, is a summary of Australia's political landscape.
There's the Guardian, which is centre left. The SMH was centre left but is shifting to the right after a takeover by Australia's biggest fossil fuel tycoon, Gina Reinhardt. Then there's numerous small outlets of varying stripes. On TV, the commercials are all strongly right wing, with government funded ABC being centre left and SBS being left.
The above is based on today's definitions. I still remember the 60s and 70s so I am acutely aware that these are all very conservative publications. They are all strictly "establishment".
One comes to eventually accept that we are controlled by corporations and that the good things in life will increasingly be restricted to that which one can fly under the radar, that the corporations haven't yet claimed for themselves. All society wants from us is to make tons of money for the country (ie. corporations) by working our guts out until we are too old and worn to enjoy our free time, and to then grow old and die conveniently and inexpensively.
The world loves those who publicly sacrifice themselves and their wellbeing for the sake of society, who sublimate their identities for the many. Those noble martyrs will the lauded and lionised - set up as examples to us all - by men in bow ties and women in pearls as they sip their cocktails before jetting off for a quiet weekend on the French Riviera.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
The irony being that it is likely the far leftist agenda that has caused such hits against the party with the conflation of what “Israel” is, what “Israeli” means, and what “Zionist” stands for historically.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑September 28th, 2018, 2:56 pm http://www.mediareform.org.uk/blog/new- ... bour-party
With what seems obvious media bias, it is nice to see a methodologically sound study which confirms the bleeding obvious.
What shocks the most is just how bad the Guardian comes across in this study.
The problem is it is almost impossible to say anything good about anyone anymore without someone dragging up several other items against a person/party/movement. Media bias is nothing new, it is just much more in our faces than ever before and maybe it’ll take modern society some time to adjust to this.
I think the youth are probably more savy to this change than anyone else. No doubt every young person is growing up having themselves misrepresented in one way or another on social media, through bullying and general misrepresentation. I imagine they’ll grow up much more aware to the subtlties of the English langauge and political manipulation than previous generations due to such personal occurrences - that is if they make the leap to see how they are being misconstrued and apply it to how they will be guilty of the same thing too from time to time and have the bravery to stand up and admit it.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
Thankfully in the UK sensationalism and hero worship is not as big a pull as in the US. The US suffers with poor news coverage where the UK has an issue with the tabloids - world renonwn for being something akin to “spawn of satan”.chewybrian wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 3:54 pmWell, I don't follow British politics, but, yes. Looking at bias against one side only makes it seems like they have an agenda.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 1:38 pm One sided??
Because it only looked at bias against Labour?
Or because it did not find anything nice the media had to say about Labour? Surely that's the point?
I have made the dubious claim that the US lacking a royal family, yet subliminally craving one, has produced a rather bizarre view of the Presidential position. In the UK all that glitz and glamour is kept out of politics in the royal family (with the added bonus of the Queen having the legal position of vetoing any new legislature and never doing so - the boon of the monarchy is having, theoretically, a great deal of legal power to change the course of politics in teh UK and yet doing nothing to voice political opinion. In the US it seems botht the moral, humanitarian and political burden are represented within the office of the President leading to a strange admixture of “crown” and government. It’s a long shot idea and probably worthy of discussion in another thread.
As for agendas, we all know too well that anything of political value cast into the sphere of “media” (probably everything) has some political weight behind it meaningfully or not. Ofte someone’s personal opinion is dragged into a political debate in order to depict their view on another matter as redundant. The most explicit example I can think of off-hand being Jacob Rees-Mogg who does speak and behave in a very reasonable manner, doesn’t get riled up, speaks clearly and logically, and is still general displayed as a snobbish fool and even his sensible statements are poo-pooed simply because he is a staunch Catholic - I say this mainly in reference to the latest episode of Question Time in which there was likley some bias because those representing the more leftist side of the house were obvously (in my opinion) hand-picked in order to make any leftist position look incompetent - and the aim was achieved well enough sadly.
Corbyn I do like because he at least doesn’t try to be something he is not. He is genuine enough, yet sadly I feel he may be being swayed here and there. Only time will tell I guess. Some things he says are sound enough, others less so. I feel that he has yet to offer up reasonable solutions to problems, that said at least in the last election his pary did manage to set out an actual plan (albeit a highly dubious one) compared to what the Conversative party outlined.
The country is generally healthier with a three party choice, so I hope for a resurgence among the Lib Dems, but I know a representative on]f the Lib Dems in the North who I used to work with and he never responds to any political questions I throw his way - which is puzzling considering I know people who live in his juristiction. That said ONE person doesn;t represent the whole party.
- ThomasHobbes
- Posts: 1122
- Joined: May 5th, 2018, 5:53 pm
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
It's probably meaningless to you. Labour now threatens the establishment which has been right wing at least since 1979.chewybrian wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 3:54 pmWell, I don't follow British politics, but, yes. Looking at bias against one side only makes it seems like they have an agenda.ThomasHobbes wrote: ↑October 1st, 2018, 1:38 pm One sided??
Because it only looked at bias against Labour?
Or because it did not find anything nice the media had to say about Labour? Surely that's the point?
Looking at the other side would render nothing.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
The only way you can get different points of view is if each outlet is independent and secure, both in its funding and from interference. That's not easy to achieve, but some public broadcasters have made a pretty decent stab at it.
-
- Posts: 2466
- Joined: December 8th, 2016, 7:08 am
- Favorite Philosopher: Socrates
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
- Burning ghost
- Posts: 3065
- Joined: February 27th, 2016, 3:10 am
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
An example being?The only way you can get different points of view is if each outlet is independent and secure, both in its funding and from interference. That's not easy to achieve, but some public broadcasters have made a pretty decent stab at it.
-
- Posts: 3119
- Joined: November 26th, 2011, 8:10 pm
- Favorite Philosopher: Terry Pratchett
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
all independent reputable newspapers until about 1980
- LuckyR
- Moderator
- Posts: 7935
- Joined: January 18th, 2015, 1:16 am
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
- Sy Borg
- Site Admin
- Posts: 14992
- Joined: December 16th, 2013, 9:05 pm
Re: Democracy can only thrive with a media that is morally sound.
Then again, I think if Murdoch did not exist someone else would become a "Murdoch". The media was self regulated as an honour system, where journalists took pride in their accuracy and impartiality. When everyone leaves the door open under an honour system it's easy picking for thieves.
So there was a huge loophole waiting to be exploited for a shyster with more ambition than pride - and that shyster was Murdoch from the 1950s on. If they need a new publicity officer, I have an apt slogan for them going forward: "Murdoch media - lying to you daily for over 60 years and still going strong!".
2023/2024 Philosophy Books of the Month
Mark Victor Hansen, Relentless: Wisdom Behind the Incomparable Chicken Soup for the Soul
by Mitzi Perdue
February 2023
Rediscovering the Wisdom of Human Nature: How Civilization Destroys Happiness
by Chet Shupe
March 2023