Media's poor use of a narrative

[Joske]

I disagree. Who said that the media is supposed to recount verifiable facts stripped of context, implication, or meaning?

What i meant was that the media should portray events as objectively as they possibly can with the information they have and this information includes contextual explanation, statements of (all) major actors, ...etc.

Plus, this overlooks the point that most media are businesses. Simply recounting verifiable facts would not sell advertising space or copies.

Well being in a competetive enviroment does not mean that "information consumers" should take subjectivity for granted, also when a certain media firm would often over-sensationalize news and even employ facts ripped from their context or use falsified information other news agencies could exploit and expose these practices and force relatively subjective news agencies out.
This way competivity can even lead to more objective news reporting.

Off course this assumes that people want objectivity and dont simply want to get the news they want to hear, but ill leave that question open.


The main point i have on the subject is that people tend to speak out on things they hardly know anything about and proclaim/believe things that are plain stupid.

[SteveMetz]

What i meant was that the media should portray events as objectively as they possibly can with the information they have and this information includes contextual explanation, statements of (all) major actors, ...etc..

But the commercial media simply gives their customers what they want. I don't think it's reasonable to expect a business to do any different.

[SJPONeill]

Perhaps the real problem is no some much perception's of misuse of the media (both the 4th Estate and the media technology) but that we, the military, are not yet able to engage effectively in that space? To misquote another source "...we win all the physical battles, but lose the information war..."

The first step in gaining some form of parity in the information spce, might be to do as an earlier poster implied and that is to "...trust the jury..." by providing it accurate albeit at times unpalatable, information that is 'unspun' and allowing that jury to draw its own conclusions...?

[Hacksaw]

Seems we are all a little testy today...

I'm not interested in mentoring a young MAJ who is disallusioned with a trade/business that is operating under a profit motive...

I think we can fairly assert that all public info sources "speak" from a perspective that invariably leads to a narrative that someone will find... lacking.

I'm disillusioned with the US media/World media too, because I would like them to be altruistic in their coverage... informing their customers in a "fair and balanced" method... but as Steve and Old Eagle have already stated... you can't blame a cur for being a cur (a little poetic license)...

I think we have perhaps given the general public writ large too much credit for sorting through the BS... These polarized media sources make a profit because the american public writ large doesn't want to sift through the BS to form an informed position... they want news with a narrative that already conforms to their view of reality... that is the point... news now comes ready to consume, no preparation in the gray matter necessary prior to accepting as an accurate portrayal of the day's events...

disillusioned I remain, if not even mildly surprised

Live well and turn off the TV

[Steve Blair]

I'm disillusioned with the US media/World media too, because I would like them to be altruistic in their coverage... informing their customers in a "fair and balanced" method... but as Steve and Old Eagle have already stated... you can't blame a cur for being a cur (a little poetic license)...

I think we have perhaps given the general public writ large too much credit for sorting through the BS... These polarized media sources make a profit because the american public writ large doesn't want to sift through the BS to form an informed position... they want news with a narrative that already conforms to their view of reality... that is the point... news now comes ready to consume, no preparation in the gray matter necessary prior to accepting as an accurate portrayal of the day's events...

And this is nothing new...not at all. Look back through "journalism" from the Civil War. The partisan press (for all sides, not just one) has been a fixture in the United States for as long as we've been a nation (and most likely before that, even). There have always (or usually) been a few more "intellectual" outlets, but they had very limited distribution compared to the staple broadsheets of the times.

Is this what the American public wants, or what they've been conditioned to expect? I suspect we'll never really know. But with all the hand-wringing about media bias it's always good to take a look in the rear-view mirror and understand that it's always been there...and often in a much more virulent form than it takes today. The difference is in the speed of the message, not the message itself.

[tequila]

And this is nothing new...not at all. Look back through "journalism" from the Civil War. The partisan press (for all sides, not just one) has been a fixture in the United States for as long as we've been a nation (and most likely before that, even). There have always (or usually) been a few more "intellectual" outlets, but they had very limited distribution compared to the staple broadsheets of the times.

This is very true, but I'd argue that this was not always well to the good. We tend to forget given the relative domestic peace of the past thirty years just how remarkably violent the U.S. was during the 1800s, the glory years of ferociously partisan (and often party-run) news sources. The rise of the Democratic Party under Jackson and Van Buren, for instance, saw genuine political mobilization towards the illegal expulsion of the Cherokees, for instance, led by Democratic newspapers. And then, of course, there was the Civil War itself, the ultimate factionalization of the country.

So yes, I think an aggressively partisan media is absolutely bad for the country. I'm not that old, but I do remember when CNN Headline News, for instance, actually reported just headline news.

[SteveMetz]

This is very true, but I'd argue that this was not always well to the good. We tend to forget given the relative domestic peace of the past thirty years just how remarkably violent the U.S. was during the 1800s, the glory years of ferociously partisan (and often party-run) news sources. The rise of the Democratic Party under Jackson and Van Buren, for instance, saw genuine political mobilization towards the illegal expulsion of the Cherokees, for instance, led by Democratic newspapers. And then, of course, there was the Civil War itself, the ultimate factionalization of the country.

So yes, I think an aggressively partisan media is absolutely bad for the country. I'm not that old, but I do remember when CNN Headline News, for instance, actually reported just headline news.

If you're suggesting a causal link between a partisan media and social violence, I really question it. I believe both intense partisanship and social conflict are dependent variables.

A highly partisan media is the American norm. The only exceptional period was the height of the Cold War. I think it's unrealistic to expect that highly exceptional period to be the norm.

But it all comes down to market mechanisms. Most people want partisan news (we here are by definition abnormal). Hence the media provides it.

[Steve Blair]

This is very true, but I'd argue that this was not always well to the good. We tend to forget given the relative domestic peace of the past thirty years just how remarkably violent the U.S. was during the 1800s, the glory years of ferociously partisan (and often party-run) news sources. The rise of the Democratic Party under Jackson and Van Buren, for instance, saw genuine political mobilization towards the illegal expulsion of the Cherokees, for instance, led by Democratic newspapers. And then, of course, there was the Civil War itself, the ultimate factionalization of the country.

So yes, I think an aggressively partisan media is absolutely bad for the country. I'm not that old, but I do remember when CNN Headline News, for instance, actually reported just headline news.

I wasn't contending that it was a "good" thing...just pointing out that a partisan media is really the historical norm in the US. Like Steve M., I think it's a dangerous leap to make a connection between this and social violence, at least on a wide scale. There have certainly been instances when the media has pushed situations (the Spanish-American War, anyone?), but again I think that's more of an exception than the rule.