Media's poor use of a narrative

[Joske]

The "job" of the media is foremost to spread information, not to interpret this information. Interpreting information should be left to people acting as individuals and each news agency, news paper...etc should simply spread information in a way as close to the truth that is possible with the information they receive.

That is why i find it hard to understand that big news agencies in say the US support political parties, think of fox news. In Belgium on the other hand things are different the news is simply delivered as it is and the interpretation is left to the commentators and the people ( although it's also not really correct to compare a country like Belgium to the US ).

Off course what you see here is a documentary, you see a large number of events trough the eyes of the people making the documentary.
Now technicaly this wouldnt matter simply because the people watching the documentary know that it's a subjective piece of information, and most importantly because both the makers and the viewers have a decent understanding of the issue at hand.

Now in my opinion this second point is often lacking both with journalists and the population who voice their opinion on the subject.

(while thinking on this, i remembered a "discussion" on the subject of the afghan war in which the Belgian army has a small involvement in response to a statement by the belgian minister of defence that; "the war in afghanistan indeed was a "guerilla" but that guerilla was a spanish term for little war, and thus that it wasnt all too bad" and in response to this a belgian journalist who had been embedded with belgian forces in afghanistan and went to several warzones before that, said that " it wasnt a little war or a guerilla but that it was a real war".
Those arent the exact quotes, and although i dont know if they were intentionally simplifying or that those were some unlucky quotes, but if you talk like that about subjects that you are supposed to be an expert at then im inclined thinking to think that you dont really know what you are talking about.)

[SteveMetz]

The "job" of the media is foremost to spread information, not to interpret this information. Interpreting information should be left to people acting as individuals and each news agency, news paper...etc should simply spread information in a way as close to the truth that is possible with the information they receive.

I disagree. Who said that the media is supposed to recount verifiable facts stripped of context, implication, or meaning? Plus, this overlooks the point that most media are businesses. Simply recounting verifiable facts would not sell advertising space or copies.

[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.

[Kiwigrunt]

The "job" of the media is foremost to spread information, not to interpret this information. Interpreting information should be left to people acting as individuals and each news agency, news paper...etc should simply spread information in a way as close to the truth that is possible with the information they receive.

That is why i find it hard to understand that big news agencies in say the US support political parties, think of fox news. In Belgium on the other hand things are different the news is simply delivered as it is and the interpretation is left to the commentators and the people

It used to be like that in Holland. I’m led to believe it has changed a bit over the years as it has become more commercialised. The moment that happens sales become the number one priority. I didn’t like it when I first came here. The news reader essentially dictated how I should feel about the news. That, and all the ‘woman’s weekly’ BS encapsulated within it. That’s why I don’t watch it any more.
Now I’m not sure where documentaries like ’60 Minutes’ should fit in this picture. Should they be regarded as (old) news?