Quote Originally Posted by AmericanPride View Post
The media looks out for our "best interest" by telling us what versions of the truth we want to hear.
Having viewed the media, worldwide, as a consumer of their product for a great many years and acknowledging a partial truth in what you say, I suggest that today the media in general "looks out for our 'best interest' by telling us what versions of the truth..." they think we want to hear -- or worse and too often, should, in their view, hear...

My suspicion is that, at least here in the US, the senior media mavens convinced themselves -- wrongly IMO -- that they had brought about US withdrawal from Viet Nam and thus had the power to shape events and attempt to continue doing so. While we can recall that Randolph Hearst may or may not have told a photographer "You provide the pictures and I'll provide the war" and say that's proof of media power, I submit that is counterbalanced by Evan Thomas from Newsweek, who said in 2004 that the media "want Kerry to win" and "that's going to be worth maybe 15 points" for Kerry. We are thus confronted with the fact that sans media support, kerry would've gotten only 43% of the 2004 vote...

I believe that said media power is vastly over rated by many. They like to throw around the word 'hubris' without applying it at home.
I would certainly find it depressing to read daily articles that disproved, undermined, or otherwise contradicted my indisputable view of the world.
Fortunately, I don't think most people have that concern; most seem willing to look at all sides of an issue. Indeed, I think most want to look at all facets. I also sense a frustration on the part of many to have to go to four or five different sources in an attempt to get balance and filter out the bias (from both sides of any dissension). Didn't some wise journalist say the first job is to tell the truth?

There was a Pew study a couple of years ago that IIRC said something like 20% of Americans wanted more foreign news and 5% wanted more celebrity news. The study noted that the actual presentation by the media more than reversed those figures due to their perception "that's what the public wants." Nominally, anyway -- I'm sure the fact that TV drives the news train and all the TV 'news' crews are owned by entertainment conglomerates has no effect on that decision...
Did you make your conclusions from the youtube vide about Iraq's military capabilities because that's what the video clearly and objectively demonstrates, or because you are predisposed (by your experiences, interests, occupation, etc) to see that in the video?
A fair question. One which could and should also be asked of most media types with respect to their reporting -- and far more intrusively, their editing, grabber headline writing, tag and clip selection. I'd even suggest that if they do not start asking themselves that question and acting upon an honest answer, they'll consign themselves to an irrelevancy even greater than they now have.

The Columbia School of Journalism and its long ago espousal of the attack dog mentality have a lot to answer for...