OT - 3000th Post - Special Debate

[Evil Monkey 52]

Hi everyone,Well, here I am, 3 years into my stint and 3000 posts heavier for it.  Through the eyes of this board I''ve seen the Fulham collapse, the WO/KTF divide, Peter Bloody Grant, the Roeder revival and now the Cullum saga.  My avatar has changed more times than my pants, and my name even changed, albeit briefly, to Death of Canaries... until I realised the abbreviation was "Doc".Each and every post has been a joy.  There''s been banter, debate, fun and laughter and if I''ve ever offended anyone well.... good! You probably deserved it... [;)]But thanks to you all for making this an enjoyable place to while away the work-hours...Anyway, enough eulogising.  I''m here for another purpose tonight, in that I''d like to see if I can''t start a lively little debate for my own means, which may or may not become apparent over time.What I''m interested in is slightly off-topic; its to do with the media, and more specifically how we form our own opinions and gain knowledge from this source; newspapers, television, magazine publications, online blogs, whatever.  Most of us cannot simply decide to tackle an issue by whizzing around the globe investigating things for ourselves, and for that we rely on the media.  We know the details of political situations on the other side of the world without going there; we feel empathy for disaster victims or hatred of public figures without meeting them; some of us even get our match reports from the media.But how does all of this influence our views on the world? Most media sources are anything but impartial, and it is the bored man who can find time to read or view reports from various viewpoints.  Are we happy to sit back and let third parties influence our opinions and, more importantly, should we be?  To what extent do we even pay attention to the media and to what extent does it inform our thinking?  How selective are we; do you read The Sun to gain the facts or just for a bit of light reading or do we leave that to the Broadsheets and let it pass us by; what TV stations do we get our news from? ITV, BBC, Sky, etc?I''d be interested to know people''s thoughts on this - I do have my own agenda but its nothing major, just a little idea - so get cracking and join the party! [<:o)]

[King Beef 0]

Having studied Media Studies for a few years I believe a theory known as the "hypodermic syringe theory" has proved to be very significant in recent years, especially after such inventions as the internet. For those who are not aware of this theory (don''t worry, you''re not alone!) it basically means the media are using stories, rumours, facts, pictures, all sorts to inject ideas and views into the viewer/reader/general reciever. The amount of media the human being is surrounded by day in, day out makes it impossible to avoid. Some people enjoy having ideas and views injected into them, it creates opinion and debate, sometimes for good, sometimes for bad. Maybe we shouldnt let the third parties influence us but as I said earlier, in this day and age it is impossible to avoid.

Interesting topic though mate!

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

[quote user="Evil Monkey"]Hi everyone,

Well, here I am, 3 years into my stint and 3000 posts heavier for it.  Through the eyes of this board I''ve seen the Fulham collapse, the WO/KTF divide, Peter Bloody Grant, the Roeder revival and now the Cullum saga.  My avatar has changed more times than my pants, and my name even changed, albeit briefly, to Death of Canaries... until I realised the abbreviation was "Doc".

Each and every post has been a joy.  There''s been banter, debate, fun and laughter and if I''ve ever offended anyone well.... good! You probably deserved it... [;)]

But thanks to you all for making this an enjoyable place to while away the work-hours...

Anyway, enough eulogising.  I''m here for another purpose tonight, in that I''d like to see if I can''t start a lively little debate for my own means, which may or may not become apparent over time.

What I''m interested in is slightly off-topic; its to do with the media, and more specifically how we form our own opinions and gain knowledge from this source; newspapers, television, magazine publications, online blogs, whatever.  Most of us cannot simply decide to tackle an issue by whizzing around the globe investigating things for ourselves, and for that we rely on the media.  We know the details of political situations on the other side of the world without going there; we feel empathy for disaster victims or hatred of public figures without meeting them; some of us even get our match reports from the media.

But how does all of this influence our views on the world? Most media sources are anything but impartial, and it is the bored man who can find time to read or view reports from various viewpoints.  Are we happy to sit back and let third parties influence our opinions and, more importantly, should we be?  To what extent do we even pay attention to the media and to what extent does it inform our thinking?  How selective are we; do you read The Sun to gain the facts or just for a bit of light reading or do we leave that to the Broadsheets and let it pass us by; what TV stations do we get our news from? ITV, BBC, Sky, etc?

I''d be interested to know people''s thoughts on this - I do have my own agenda but its nothing major, just a little idea - so get cracking and join the party! [<:o)]
[/quote]

The better man/poster won the 3K race. Well done mate, here''s to 3K more[Y] I''m looking forward to reaching the big 3,000 now

[Mook 0]

Well, congrats on the 3000 posts thing. Jeez, the first post I ever made on the pinkun message board was to slate Chris Llewellyn''s brief performance against Millwall at the beginning of the 2001/02 season! Man, so many hours wasted...Regarding the media, I get more disillusioned with it every day. I believe that we all know FAR too much. Everyone is convinced the world "is going to hell in a handcart" and believes that it was much better in the "good old" days. Yeah right! Bad things have always happened, it''s just nobody spread it like wildfire then broadcasted it 25 times a day on 50 different channels. We can worry, fret, wring our hands and panic about so many things and so few will actually ever directly affect us. And it''s so bloody biased.I reckon, if newspapers didn''t exist, the word would be a better place. News at 10. In my opinion, that''s enough news for us all!And with a view to football, the media is far too influential. Teams/agents can virtually complete a transfer using the media. And how many times do you hear "Steven Gerrard, best midfielder in the world" or "Best league in the world" or "Best left back in the world" regarding the premier league, then repeated in parrot fashion by those with Sky TV. The Golden Generation? Media invention.Hope I haven''t missed the point.

[Tony DaWonderful 35]

WOW!! What a post!!!!

You are right to question this media issue because we live in the world of spin and mis information. However most people will choose only the thinest layer of intellectual input for themselves and swallow most everything else thats served up in this dumbed down nation.

As for myself, being self employed and having a new family I have little time to look at whats being offered thru the media. I enjoy the safety of the EDP at the weekend and sometimes the independant on Sunday. That sound like the Osterich with its head in the sand, but I refuse to be force fed some tabloid political driven retoric (you dont get that so much in the EDP).

 I have been fortunate to have travelled to some amazing countries and what I have seen as left me in no doubt that the press will cover only what is important to big business or politicians for their own purposes. This applies the world over and most media brush over any issues that are an embarressment or non profitting to its government.

To answer your question I would like to believe that the BBC is independantly run and fair with its coverage. Although I remain synical as to how true this is.

Great 3000th post E.M. keep them up.

Just wait till someone shouts for the mods "please sir its not City related". F*** em and hope they open their eyes to whats been written.

 

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

What are we going to do to celebrate my 3,000th?

 

Excellent thread BTW I only wish I could add to the fantastic posts already contributed

[Tony DaWonderful 35]

[quote user="C.T "]

What are we going to do to celebrate my 3,000th?

 

Excellent thread BTW I only wish I could add to the fantastic posts already contributed

[/quote]

How about ''do you think we should have got rid of Hucks?'' Sounds original to me!

[missing in action? 0]

to be honest, when talking about newspapers especially there appears to be a cultural divide,you have your builders and sleaze that read the sun, the educated but outcast people reading the times, the everything hating mail and guardian readers, etc..obviously your cultural status can affect what you choose to expose yourself to and i think the believeabilty (should be a word) of the text you read, whilst the mainstream story makers not story presenting papers can generate good debate, they often cause more arguments about certain subjects than anything else. look at max mosely and the NOTW for instance, it drummed up good debate and no doubt thousands of pounds in interest in the story but the believeabilty is compromised. i tend to think the NOTW as being like a little fiction novel, quick, light and occasinonally interesting but never take it seriously, you wouldnt believe in hobbits after reading lord of the rings (if you do believe in them i apologise).when looking at the internet, its the same as looking at papers, the context of which something said is very important, as they will try and reword headlines to attract interest.its like if you looked at a website like newsnow.com for instance and saw the headline, norwich looking for players, you would as an NCFC fan look at that article, only to find its about  a rugby team or something. i saw an archant article in about march i think, it said, Dion to stay on, so i bought the paper, and it was " Dion to stay on if norwich reach play offs"it wasnt hard fact, which is what i look for.until i hear anything OFFICIALLY from the victim of the media''s interest i don''t really look into it too much.it doesnt matter where that hard fact comes from, it could be an official site, an interview (not quoted as saying). it doesnt matter, but to me it has to be true..

[ncfcstar 342]

Congrats on the milestone, and an interesting post to boot.

Obviously where you get your information from will define the person you are, because it will determine the beliefs that you have on subjects ranging from the mundane to even this topic. Someone reading The Mail is going to have a different outlook to someone reading The Guardian, and the same can be said for a variety of media forms. Therefore the need for an impartial media source is paramount for people who do not want to be reading the standard Daily Mail ''They are taking all our money'' headlines, and I would also like to think the BBC can provide us with that.

Some people will be happy to sit back and let third parties influence their beliefs, and will indulge in doing so, while others will want to see different arguments, in fact the lack of impartiality is sometimes an important part of the media, and leads to the debate that we see daily on these forums. Anyone who uses the internet daily, or watches TV, or reads newspapers, even people who walk around our streets are either directly or indirectly affected by the media, therefore in even the smallest regard people are affected by the media, consequently it affects everyones thinking sadly, whether they like it or not.

Obviously this is very topical at the moment due to the impending Olympic games, and the control on the media the Chinese government have. This is the kind of state where media control has gone over the top, comparable to Soviet Russia or Nazi Germany. Thankfully we live in a country, possibly one of the only in the world where ''free speech'' is a given right, and free press is common place.

I get most of my news from the BBC, and if I was to buy a newspaper to read it would be The Times (simply because it is a proper paper in tabloid form!). I love the fact that we can get our information from a variety of sources in this country, and let''s hope this continues ad infinitum.

[ZiggyPiggy 0]

Without divulging too much incriminating information, I can assure you from first hand experience that the BBC is more impartial than independent media outlets, to the extent that many characters from each side of the divide pride themselves for the fact they have to be/don''t have to be.When I first read your post i immediately assumed you were hoping we would all write an article/dissertation/media studies coursework paper for you! The way we choose to interact with the messages available to us goes far beyond the wishes of the teachers'' grauniad or the border police''s mail. Norwich fans are a fantastic case in point. There are many ways we choose to receive information about the goings on at colney and fcr, however some of us will give credit to the "i saw emile heskey buying tartan paint in B&Q" posts on the pink un whilst others will believe their mate whose mate ..."works at the airport and, like, totally saw andy cole...".You have posters like the wiz. who in my short period of time on this message board sees himself as a kind of jack dee grumpy old man figure, he of the downturned lips and pessimism. He will read Roeder''s comments about two strikers and pick out that they could be anyone, nobodies and freebies. Then there are others of us who are a bit more level headed and aren''t quite as desperate to invoke a large reaction and a 6 page thread by simply taking the man it word. It doesn''t mean we also took his Emerald Park Lupoli quotes without a pinch of salt. I think the point i''m trying to make is, the media only shapes those people''s opinions when those people find it convenient for their general outlook. Great documentaries can inspire and inform, and are a far greater source of information by their nature of preparation and research. The internet is the worst example. The nature of most advertising agreements on particularly publishing websites such as Archants being a CPM model (cost per thousand times a visitor sees the ad),means that you''ll get stories like "Dion to return to norwich" to get us useless punters desperate for a story on signings 9 and 10 to click through and see he''s doing a book tour and will be in Borders on tuesday. And we probably won''t even see the Expedia fly to Rome for £35.99 ad, let alone click through to it.my media highlight of 2008 was being quoted by Fans Eye in the EDP after a particularly strongly worded rant to Mr. Aitken via email after some irresponsible journalism trying to encourage roeder haters. His intention was to invoke a reaction... and it got one.

[Tony DaWonderful 35]

May be proven wrong but it says alot when ''Hi from a Wrexham fan'' gets more viewing than this post.

You deserve a better response E.M

[Fozzie 0]

I was hoping for more of a mass debate.There are videos of such things on the ''net, I believe.Sometimes more than one person doing it.

[Camuldonum 0]

 

I was once invited to  become a "Professor of Journalism" at the National Council for the Training of Journalists at Harlow, took one look at the curriculum and declined.  It didn''t include any courses on subterfuge, how to con someone into admitting something, how to write round someone is a complete **** or a totally lying barsteward without actually getting sued, how to do a buy up when you have less money than the opposition (that remind you of anything?)

"Media Studies" not for me - 51 years in this business. 

I think I''d like to be regarded as a striker.  Given half a chance.....GET IN!

1-0.

In my second week in journalism, aged 15, on the Laindon Recorder I had to break the news to someone that all four of her family had been killed in a crash on the A12.  I got there before the police did.

It''s quite like football.  It''s a business in which you grow up very quickly, or not as the case may be.

Below is a general definition (not mine) which I think is fairly accurate:

The Times:

Read by the people who run the country.

Daily Mirror:

Read by the people who think they run the country.

Guardian:

Read by the people who think they ought to run the country.

Morning Star:

Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.

Daily Mail:

Read by the wives of the people who own the country.

Financial Times:

Read by the people who own the country.

Daily Express:

Read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.

Daily Telegraph:

Read by the people who think it still is.

The Independent: Read by the people who are not happy about the Middle East.

Daily Star: Read by people who think Jade is top totty.

Metro: Read by people with nothing else to do between Bethnal Green and Ealing Common.

The Sun:

Their readers don''t care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.

[macdougalls perm 0]

Yeah, this is an interesting post. Congrats on the 3,000! [H] 

It is certainly, imo, a more two way process than we tend to assume. We aren''t just passive receptors of information fed to us, particularly not in an advanced capitalist society; imo, the various forms of media are as much a reflection of ideas generated through day to day social interactiuon as they have a hand in producing the organisation of society which shapes these ideas; pretty much a cyclical chicken and egg type thing as I see it. The media reflects the way we think (as it is generally chasing our ''dollar'') but at the same time plays an integral role in shaping the stereotypes, desires and fears that make us think that way; it seems to me that in this way a capitalist democracy can allow freedom of speech and thought yet rely on a system of self policing (maintained through normative social pressures and cultural stereotypes) to keep such totally ''free'' speech within ''acceptable'' perameters.

If anyone is familiar with Antonio Gramsci''s theory of hegemony, he simply observes that effective power does not work by force or coercion alone but by the organisation of consent to a certain system and that this is largely negotiated through cultural forms such as cinema, the music industry, in short all forms of the media. A good example of this type of negotiation is with something like punk or Bob Marley''s music; something which in its origins appears to pose, through the increasing popularity of its message, a genuine threat to the prevailing order - answer, rather than resist or try to repress it sign them up and capitalise on their popularity and hey presto what was the threat now becomes part of the big money making machine of the music, television and news industry. Becomes mainstream and ''acceptable'', losing its edge; they''re supporting the system they seek to oppose.

Anyway, bit waffly isn''t it - in short, I reckon that it''s obviously fundamental. Goes right to the heart of how we legitimise our legal systems, systems of government, type of economy, social life, inclusion and exclusion from /of certain communities etc etc ...          

[macdougalls perm 0]

Bugger, I spelled ''parameters'' wrong, lol! [:D]

[Robert N. LiM 6,299]

I have lots of views on this subject, but I''ll restrict myself to one observation:

When did it become a commonplace to describe the Mail and the Guardian as equal and opposite? The Guardian is an intelligent, interesting, centre-left newspaper; the Mail is a mendacious, misogynistic, homophobic, xenophobic rag. As Stephen Fry memorably said, opening it is like unfolding a piece of used toilet paper.

The Guardian''s natural opposite is the Telegraph, an intelligent, interesting, right-wing newspaper. I think the Guardian doesn''t help itself by constantly attacking the Mail (though its attacks are of course justified). A much better course would be to treat it with the contempt it deserves and ignore it.

 

[BlyBlyBabes 0]

[quote user="macdougalls perm"]Bugger, I spelled ''parameters'' wrong, lol! [:D][/quote]

macd. Spelled or spelt?

[*-)]

[:)]

OTBC

 

[macdougalls perm 0]

[quote user="BlyBlyBabes"]

[quote user="macdougalls perm"]Bugger, I spelled ''parameters'' wrong, lol! [:D][/quote]

macd. Spelled or spelt?

[*-)]

[:)]

OTBC

 

[/quote]

The funniest thing is that I thought about that too, but thought I''d better stop or I could go on for ever, lol![:D]

 

[Shack Attack 0]

Interesting stuff EM and congratulations on reaching 3,000 [Y].

I tend to get most of my news from the BBC as despite the complaints from certain quarters I still like to think that they are reasonably impartial. Being a self loathing, lefty, liberal [;)] I''ll normally buy The Guardian two or three times a week but I try and check any big stories online at a few other newspaper sites for a bit of balance. I''ll occasionally read The Sun if there''s one lying around at work and I''ll often have a look here http://www.bigdaddymerk.co.uk/mailwatchnew/ to have a good old laugh at The Daily Mail.

The advent of twenty four hour news has meant that so much more ''news'' gets reported these days. My opinion is that newspapers now try and keep up with the rolling news channels who, by the very nature of the fact that they have twenty four hours to fill, often end up reporting opinion as news. For me that''s the biggest problem with the media in this country. I haven''t got a problem with The Mail because it''s explicitly right wing, we need balance in the media as a whole, but because it deliberately distorts the facts to influence it''s readership. All media sources spin things to a certain degree but there''s a difference between that and willfully distorting facts and figures to support and argument in my opinion.

I could go on as this is a fascinating subject but my boss has just come back to her desk so I might have to come back to this later [:D]

[Evil Monkey 52]

Right, firstly thanks every for your responses (and Bly), keep them coming!

Personally I''m a Beeb man, I like the impartiality that comes with it,

knowing that I''m going to be getting an account of the known facts

rather than a polemic.  A mate and I used say that you could track

the differing news standards across the terrestrial channels of an

evening; you start with the 6 o''Clock News to get a factual account of

the day''s news (Gordon Brown Raises Taxes), then switch over to ITV for

the same news but in tabloid version (Brown in Tax Crisis!) then go to

Channel 4, who know you''ve already watched the facts on the Beeb so

decide to dig further (Forget the taxes, where are the WMDs?!). 

Ignoring Channel 5, of course...

What I''m trying to drive at is the way in which we are informed by the

media and how much trust we place in what we''re told.  Much is

made of the media, in the USA particularly, being used to influence the

masses and breed a state of fear; people are easiest to control when

they perceive a threat.  So what do we think of this?  Is it

possible to control a population through the media, or are we more

savvy than that?

Further thoughts, please [:)]

[Beauseant 0]

Sadly its all too possible.The classic example is Fox in the States which has never let facts or science get in the way of its relentless homophobia,Islamophobia and general hatred of anything or anybody who dares to be slightly to the left of fascism.In addition I think that you will find that there are many people in this country who unthinkingly take their chosen newspaper''s slant on any given event as being gospel.

As has been pointed out news is available around the clock in all kinds of formats,and is filling the gaps that used to be left for debate.

[Chrisr 0]

[quote user="camuldonum"]

 

Below is a general definition (not mine) which I think is fairly accurate:

The Times:

Read by the people who run the country.

Daily Mirror:

Read by the people who think they run the country.

Guardian:

Read by the people who think they ought to run the country.

Morning Star:

Read by the people who think the country ought to be run by another country.

Daily Mail:

Read by the wives of the people who own the country.

Financial Times:

Read by the people who own the country.

Daily Express:

Read by the people who think that the country ought to be run as it used to be.

Daily Telegraph:

Read by the people who think it still is.

The Independent: Read by the people who are not happy about the Middle East.

Daily Star: Read by people who think Jade is top totty.

Metro: Read by people with nothing else to do between Bethnal Green and Ealing Common.

The Sun:

Their readers don''t care who runs the country as long as she has big tits.

[/quote]I love this! I swear I learned nearly everything important I know about managment from Yes Minister. I''m not sure that Media is much different to how it has always been. The reason newspapers exist is to sell newspapers.(ooh cliche)  Find your audience, size it up, write for it, they buy it, hey presto.I don''t think the BBC is as impartial as many like to think. Their use of  bbc.co.uk funded by us through the licence fee makes it a pretty uneven playing field against others. Having said that I would pay the whole fee just for Test match Special. The one thing that does bug me is 24hr rolling news, the whole "What''s happening now, and now, and now" really annoys me. Oh and the realiance on "viewer content". The laziest form of journalism.

[InLambertWeTrust! 0]

This thread deserves a bump

[7rew 0]

Yep -Yes minister had alot of truth in it.  http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=cxdMFRwztl4 although you missed onePersonnally I am a Beeb/Guardian/Private Eye reader, mostly Beeb.  I generally mistrust all of them - so i pick the ones that spin to where I am anyway.

[Evil Monkey 52]

Cheers CT, I''d have done it myself but thought it would be self-promotion..

I''m still interested in people''s thoughts, particularly on the issue of

control through the media... keep ''em coming guys and gals![:D]

[ncfcstar 342]

Without a doubt I think it is possible to control the majority of the population, never the whole population but definitely the majority.

This has been proved in many cases over the years, in Nazi Germany, Soviet Russia, and the Western Allies during the Cold War, and to a certain extent WWII. Obviously a case in point at the moment is China, where people have been controlled so the extent where certain forms of media are banned/controlled a reflection of the Soviet media controls that existed after WWII mainly constructed through the Stalin era.

There is always the silent minority (or sometimes not so silent!) that will not follow the perceptions in the media, but despite what this minority may think the majority will always follow what the media is preaching. Maybe due to a lack of education, a lack of initiative, or extreme views. Before 2001, no-one was concerned with an Islamic threat, but now if you ask the ''average'' man or woman on the street they will be concerned, even scared about the ''threat'' that is apparently posed. If that doesn''t prove the media is a controlling source of public opinion then I don''t know what does.

It is a shame, but in this post-modern world, media affects our everyday lives, and thus influences almost everyones actions.

[Beauseant 0]

It''s not even a modern concept.There''s plenty of evidence of the way in which the plebs were manipulated by the patricians in the Roman Republic by selective dissemination of "news",and Octavian (later the Emperor Augustus ) was a master of what we would now call PR.Basically anyone who controls the spread of news is in a strong position to influence the majority.Sadly Murdoch is in just such a position!

[Evil Monkey 52]

Funny you should mention the Roman Republic, Beauseant, for I''ve very

much got this in mind with regards to this topic.  Augustus in

particular, as you say, was a master of PR and is a much beloved

Emperor for it.  Murdoch is in such a position but is hardly

well-loved.  Even those who do watch Fox News or read The Sun

religiously will probably refer to the man as a wart upon our

civilisation. So it seems that whilst PR and spin can gain you

popularity, as with Augustus, Media influence doesn''t have the same

effect if you don''t put anything back into the "relationship", such as

Murdoch simply taking everyone''s cash and rolling in it.

So I guess to successfully achieve media control, you would have to put

forward the idea that you are a good person and to achieve the control

covertly.

Very interesting... keep it coming, though! I want more I tells ya! And

I can''t believe CT''s MMM post has got more responses than this! Guess I

don''t appeal to the lowest common denominator? [;)]

[Beauseant 0]

Evil Monkey wrote the following post at 31/07/2008 11:12 AM:

Funny you should mention the Roman Republic, Beauseant, for I''ve very much got this in mind with regards to this topic.  Augustus in particular, as you say, was a master of PR and is a much beloved Emperor for it.  Murdoch is in such a position but is hardly well-loved.  Even those who do watch Fox News or read The Sun religiously will probably refer to the man as a wart upon our civilisation. So it seems that whilst PR and spin can gain you popularity, as with Augustus, Media influence doesn''t have the same effect if you don''t put anything back into the "relationship", such as Murdoch simply taking everyone''s cash and rolling in it.

So I guess to successfully achieve media control, you would have to put forward the idea that you are a good person and to achieve the control covertly.

Very interesting... keep it coming, though! I want more I tells ya! And I can''t believe CT''s MMM post has got more responses than this! Guess I don''t appeal to the lowest common denominator?


I agree that the key is putting something back.To quote Augustus himself " I found Rome a  city of clay,I leave it to you in marble ".What would Murdoch''s comparative claim be? " I ruined the Times,ripped people off with Sky,gave a high profile and unquestioning voice to the hawks in the States and printed lots of pictures of tits", perhaps?

[Evil Monkey 52]

[quote user="Beauseant"]I agree that the key is putting something

back.To quote Augustus himself " I found Rome a  city of clay,I

leave it to you in marble ".What would Murdoch''s comparative claim be?

" I ruined the Times,ripped people off with Sky,gave a high profile and

unquestioning voice to the hawks in the States and printed lots of

pictures of tits", perhaps?[/quote]

Brilliant, that should go on his headstone! [:D]