Media influence

Just like in Britain, State papers were declassified early this year hear in Ireland and one in particular caught my eye. Basically back in '75 editors of the largest media group in Ireland at the time, were ordered to give not support or voice to a particular politician. Now as it happens, the chap in question (Charles Haughey) was a crooked bastard and the fact that the British Embassy felt the need to express it's tacit approval is a bit worrying but that's not what I'm interested in.

Now I'm not naive, I know media groups, most famously in the States I'd guess, have agendas and push them, I think in Europe they tend to be a little more subtle, using ommission rather than open attack to influence people. One good example would be this same media groups lack of reporting on Loyalist intimidation of Nationalists etc etc.

What I'm curious in hearing is, how extensive and how effective do you all think media influence is on people? Specifically private media, though here that's a little skewed since the national broadcaster pushes an agenda all of its own as well.

How dangerous do you think it is? After all, these groups are unelected, largely less accountable to consequences than politicians that may try to influence us etc.

Thanks for your thoughts.

to be honest the media can influence people, politicians, wars.

It can make people look like heroes if the media allow it, or can make them hated by all..


to put it into context i think the media influence the world, for good or evil, more than any president..

If you don't vary your sources it can be very influential. If something strikes you as interesting, don't stick to the one article but look at what other sources have to say on the matter; it might lead to confirmation of your earlier opinion, it might cause a new train of thought. By not comparing sources it's almost impossible to get a good picture of things, and seems like laziness to me, particularly now so many papers have information on the internet.

I think it's a mistake to think in terms of 'the media', though, due to the varying nature of newspapers and the like; some lean in one political direction, some in others. If only for that reason, varied sources are a must.

Just like in Britain, State papers were declassified early this year hear in Ireland and one in particular caught my eye.
Some interesting stuff again this year from both sides of the water .
Charlie was worried about too many refugees coming from the six counties , Dev wasn't the only gobshite to send condolances over Hitlers death .
Oh and some of the British government were very happy with the bombing of Dublin airport .

a man who reads nothing but newspapers knows less than a man who reads nothing at all-Benjamin Franklin

truly media is a strong force in the world, most people are sheep who do not like to think for themselves or persue anything involving great personal work. it is those people who accept news as absolute truths, those people are in someplaces the majority (disturbing), so in these places any news that can evoke emotion will use it to tilt to there views. its all in the writing, as was stated unless your a really free thinker it is easy to accept the news and thiose news depending on who tells it can ,make anyone a villian or a hero.

personally i think the free media hurts the world, especially the privately owned who seem to not need to get the full story or check sorces, not that public media does not do the same one sided thing but i would have to trust at the most only people who were present.

Moving on: free media is a blessing on the world. Free media took Nixon down, free media has unseated crooked politicians and dictatorships. What is dangerous to the world is a media like most 'civilized' nations have. A media which is not free, but instead slave to corporate interests and profit is what destroys accountability.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

a man who reads nothing but newspapers knows less than a man who reads nothing at all-Benjamin Franklin

---

I thought that was Jefferson, no?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lentonius

to be honest the media can influence people, politicians, wars.

It can make people look like heroes if the media allow it, or can make them hated by all..


to put it into context i think the media influence the world, for good or evil, more than any president..

---

I think we're far better off now with the Internet, ect. than we have ever been previously. Before, the media seemed monolithic- now many varied perspectives are available to those willing to take time to look for them.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by master of the puppets

a man who reads nothing but newspapers knows less than a man who reads nothing at all-Benjamin Franklin

---

I use this quote in my sig - its from Thomas Jefferson however.

I would say that the political leanings in papers only affect passive readers. Incomplete or erroneous reporting has obvious problems though...

oops, sorry i thought it was ole ben franky

Media has to be very influential otherwise TV ads would not be worth the massive cost ...

Also the candidate with the biggest TV budget is most likely to win and/or the one who Rupert Murdoch (or a Packer) backs... we own your media, you belong to Aus. :laugh4:

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Redleg

I use this quote in my sig - its from Thomas Jefferson however.

---

Shouldn't you update that quote? Wouldn't blogs be more appropriate to the new media environment, or perhaps 24-hour cable news? Newspapers aren't nearly as important or immediate as they were in TJ's day.

Oh, wait, you're probably one of those Original Intent guys. Nothing can ever be updated. Never mind.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

Shouldn't you update that quote? Wouldn't blogs be more appropriate to the new media environment, or perhaps 24-hour cable news? Newspapers aren't nearly as important or immediate as they were in TJ's day.

Oh, wait, you're probably one of those Original Intent guys. Nothing can ever be updated. Never mind.

---

I actually had an update that I just took out of my signature today.

So are you resorting to trolling now?. To bad you attempted such a tactic.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by JimBob

Moving on: free media is a blessing on the world. Free media took Nixon down, free media has unseated crooked politicians and dictatorships. What is dangerous to the world is a media like most 'civilized' nations have. A media which is not free, but instead slave to corporate interests and profit is what destroys accountability.

---

Agreed. What we have today in the "free world" of America is corporate media. The news we receive is either watered down or sensationalized depending on the view of the corporate leadership.

Early on in college (many light years ago) we were asked to review any headline story of the recent past and to use atleast four sources and their perspectives of it. Mine was on the Bay of Tonkin attacks in 1964; Newsweek: Pearl Harbor .... again. NY Times: an unusual event, since the North Vietnam government denied it - but, appologized for any misunderstanding. Times: Our brave sailors pervailed. And, The Christian Science Monitor: USN ships saw blimps on their radar, fired guns and blimps disappeared - and it Seems in the excitement our ships may have even fired their smaller weaponry at one another.

Point is, it all depends on the editors and leadership of a news source as to how a real news story will be handled. Remember over 3,000 news people covered the OJ and Michael Jackson trials - sensationalism sells. And news is a business .... big business.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

Shouldn't you update that quote? Wouldn't blogs be more appropriate to the new media environment, or perhaps 24-hour cable news? Newspapers aren't nearly as important or immediate as they were in TJ's day.

Oh, wait, you're probably one of those Original Intent guys. Nothing can ever be updated. Never mind.

---

Wow, who pissed in your wheaties this morning?:no:

Quote:

---

Shouldn't you update that quote? Wouldn't blogs be more appropriate to the new media environment, or perhaps 24-hour cable news? Newspapers aren't nearly as important or immediate as they were in TJ's day.

Oh, wait, you're probably one of those Original Intent guys. Nothing can ever be updated. Never mind.

---

How absurd. 'Updating' a quote would be lying, just like Big Brother liked to 'update' history.

Crazed Rabbit

So according to Redleg I'm trolling, according to DD I'm eating urine-flavored Wheaties, and according to CR I'm demanding a Stalinist re-writing of history. And all because I teased Redleg about his quote, which I think he takes too literally!

I was teasing, kids, teasing. You can respond as though I was nailing 95 theses to the door of a chuch, but isn't that a bit of an overreaction?

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by Lemurmania

So according to Redleg I'm trolling, according to DD I'm eating urine-flavored Wheaties, and according to CR I'm demanding a Stalinist re-writing of history. And all because I teased Redleg about his quote, which I think he takes too literally!

---

Hmm the first part was a tease which I didn't mind - notice the first part of my response - the second part was a troll, and attempt to slam the individual.

Now your attempting to backpeddle, nice try however. Remember your response here next time you get upset with something I state - because I am only teasing.

So I'm wriggling out of an awkward position by lying and claiming I'm teasing? And I'd better not ever get steamed because "teasing" is an all-purpose cop-out to all things? Am I reading your rhetoric correctly, Red?

Wow, I guess I'd better learn to be a better person before engaging with you in the future. Please, please, help me become a better person! I'm not sure I can do it on my own! I'm so used to using evil schemes to avoid all responsibility, and without a stalwart pillar such as yourself -- a man who can pierce through my miasma of self-serving lies -- I may never improve. Do not let me down.

Quote:

---

Originally Posted by lugh

After all, these groups are unelected, largely less accountable to consequences than politicians that may try to influence us etc.

---

Not so. People 'elect' to read their papers, watch their channels, visit their websites and buy the products of their advertisers. Mankind wants to be cheated, so cheated it is. By the way I don't think readers and spectators take media or ads half as seriously as they take themselves. The solution to skewed information is to look into as many different sources as possible. As a journalist I am professionally obliged to do so; every morning for instance I dutifully read a cr@pheap by the name of De Telegraaf. I watch news and entertainment channels that would make hardened firemen or Marines cry within minutes.
:dizzy2: :wall: :sweatdrop:

Removed :oops:

I personally have stopped really listening to the media. Remember how that little thing bout weapons of mass destruction worked out, oh I don't know, maybe a couple years ago, cameras, invasion, that sort of thing. Of course, I was never one to watch the news that often anyway, so now I don't follow it at all, except when it is online, where I can read, think through the article, and decide for myself wether to really believe it.