Media's poor use of a narrative

[SteveMetz]

The media is composed of businesses. In a free market system, businesses seek their own interests. That's simply the way it works. If you don't like a free market system, what would you propose instead?

[Tukhachevskii]

Should they even be peddling a narrative? Isn't it the job of the media (admittedly I'm old fashioned, so bear with me) to inform the public in a reasoned, fair and equitable manner, to furnish them with the facts, not theories or narratives, so that they can make informed decisions come election time? ( think that's J.S.Mill's definition from about the time that the British parliament was considering widening the enfranchiseent of the electorate to the "dumber" classes.)

[SteveMetz]

I'm also having a bit of trouble understanding how "CBS has sold their soul to the Democratic Party" because they are critiquing a Democratic administration. Seems more like a talk radio quip than serious analysis.

[Bob's World]

We need to give the American people credit. They are bombarded with all kinds of information and perspectives, but typically sift the BS out all by themselves.

This is a lesson driven home during my time as a prosecutor and working jury trials. The American populace is the ultimate "jury" for American policy and politics, and they will deliver their finding come election day, one way or the other.

Lesson one: Don't think that just because the judge, the prosecutor and the defense counsel are all highly educated in general and most trained on trials that they have all the answers. They don't.

Lesson two: The jury usually gets it right. They don't always give you what you think is right, but they usually get it right.

Lesson three: The more you trust and respect the jury, the more they will in turn trust and respect you.


When the media (or an official) puts out a story that on its face is full of conflicts and thinly veiled agendas, they disrespect "the jury" and the jury notices and it all goes toward their final holding. Ms Stahl is entitled to tell the story she wants to tell, and CBS is entitled to shape the narrative they want to shape. She is doing what she thinks is best based on her interests, and the same for CBS. Trust the jury though, and don't take it personal when a position you don't agree with is presented to them.

[J Wolfsberger]

We need to give the American people credit. They are bombarded with all kinds of information and perspectives, but typically sift the BS out all by themselves.

...

When the media (or an official) puts out a story that on its face is full of conflicts and thinly veiled agendas, they disrespect "the jury" and the jury notices and it all goes toward their final holding. Ms Stahl is entitled to tell the story she wants to tell, and CBS is entitled to shape the narrative they want to shape. She is doing what she thinks is best based on her interests, and the same for CBS. Trust the jury though, and don't take it personal when a position you don't agree with is presented to them.

Nicely put.

[BayonetBrant]

Isn't it the job of the media (admittedly I'm old fashioned, so bear with me) to inform the public in a reasoned, fair and equitable manner, to furnish them with the facts, not theories or narratives, so that they can make informed decisions come election time?

I'm curious where you're looking for a "job description" on the "media" - as well as how you define "media"...

[SteveMetz]

I also think the "job" of the commercial media is to make a profit for their company. Ascribing lofty goals is like saying the mission of Merck is to heal the sick when it's to make a profit.

[Tukhachevskii]

I also think the "job" of the commercial media is to make a profit for their company. Ascribing lofty goals is like saying the mission of Merck is to heal the sick when it's to make a profit.

I was using the example of the BBC, a public corporation paid for by the public to inform the public on the issues of the day. Unfortunately, New Labour decided to rein it in and turn it into a spin outlet. American style news-media-entertainment businesses are different from those of "Old" Europe (we have other "older" preferences that may also seem "archaic"). Or atleast they were before US corporations, and one particulalry nasty Aussie, decided to take them over.

[SteveMetz]

And we have National Public Radio and the Public Broadcasting Service. But they are niche, not mass providers. And they are no longer predominantly government funded.

They also have a clear partisan slant. I'm a huge National Public Radio fan but they have made my head explode by deciding to refer to illegal aliens as "undocumented immigrants." I emailed them and asked if they also refer to shoplifters as "unreceipted customers."

[tequila]

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.

I think the example of Radio Milles Collines in Rwanda and Radio Television in Serbia during the Bosnian Civil War are strong arguments against your thesis. Both were used to spread false atrocity stories and mobilize communities to "self-defense." As one Serbian dissident editor put it, "You must imagine a United States with every little TV station everywhere taking the exact same editorial line --- a line dictated by David Duke. You too would have war in five years."