Politicians and truth

0 Kudo

Author	Comment
creac	Politicians and truth		Lead	[-]
Posts: 3191 07-03-09 6:50 PM Mortal Wombat Administrator	Tags : None Have we forced our politicians into the creatures that they are? An interesting and brief article discuss an instance of honest and intelligent discussion from an Australian federal politician: http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2009/07/04/2616667.htm Since so many of the voters tend not to follow beyond the first sound bite of the TV, is it perhaps our fault that politicians are driven to avoid more complex and intelligent discussion for fear of the backlash from the majority who fail to understand (not because they can't, but because they can't be bothered)? Look at the speeches given by politicians before electronic media, before TV and even before radio. They had a lot more substance, opinion, thought and consideration - and people waited until the end before then considering their own opinions. "But if the while I think on thee, dear friend, All losses are restored and sorrows end."
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Aebriol		#1	[url]	[-]
Posts: 773 07-03-09 7:40 PM	I don't think people are to blame. I think the "media as a business model" is. Frankly, I believe that decades ago, it was more about investigating, finding out the truth, and presenting it, and letting the politicians have their say but trying to get them to answer tough questions. I remember the first few times I saw al-jazeera. I felt they were intentionally misleading their viewers, because they let people state things, and not contradicting them even though they knew it was lies. You could have a terrorist spokesman go on TV and say "we have never killed anyone" and two days before, on the same channel, say "we take responsibility for these suicide bombers" - and not being contradicted in either case. These days, I don't feel they are any different from say Fox News. Does the exact same thing. Let people present their world view, nod and ask questions, then go over to the next person. Higher ratings? Make more of it. Fox news special? Well ... they do the same thing here in norway. It seems to be a really big "nono" unless you are sure whoever you are interviewing will be destroyed for good to contradict them (unless they are elected and "have" to be available for the media), simply because you don't want to be blacklisted. And about speeches: It's always about cutting the shortest possbile segment, then replaying it 50 times, and try to make a huge story about it. Then have media making stories about other medias reporting that other media is reporting on something that was said (queue media clip) - and have it replayed 200 times at least untill the next "big story" breaks. Reporters in norway are using fun headlines like: "Politician X: This is a disaster". Read the article or seeing the interview, it went something like this: - Interviewer: Would you say this is a disaster? - Politician: If I could use my own words, and not those you put in my mouth, this isn't a situation we're happy about. Things are not working as well as we had hoped, and we are looking at ways to make it more effective". - Reporter: So, it's not a disaster that, XX (poor person used as an example to illustrate point), isn't getting (whatever the current story is about) - Politician: No, that's not what I said. What I said was that this is not an ideal ... Result? Headline reads: Politician: Admits disaster! In 10 different online newspapers, tv shows, tv "news" shows. For a week. I mean, with media like that, what politician would admit to anything possible being less than ideal? That mistakes may have been made? It'll be replayed as a "I've made mistakes" clip for fun forever. So honestly? Sure, people are to blame. But the media not being interested in independent analysis (unless it supports whatever market segment you are interested in targeting) are more to blame. Last Edited By: Aebriol 07-03-09 7:42 PM. Edited 1 time.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#2	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2427 07-03-09 11:00 PM	creac wrote: Since so many of the voters tend not to follow beyond the first sound bite of the TV, is it perhaps our fault that politicians are driven to avoid more complex and intelligent discussion for fear of the backlash from the majority who fail to understand (not because they can't, but because they can't be bothered)? This concession was immediately seized upon by the media and Mr Hockey's political opponents as an error of judgment to be condemned and exploited. I did not see any role of the "public". I see the politician and the media. The media is not "the public".
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Kendien		#3	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4125 07-03-09 11:12 PM Mera's Master	Oh please, the "public" devour every fucking morsel of "news" that the "media" puts out. You folks are naive if you think the media isn't playing to what works. The American people, as well as many other nations citizens, have dumbed down politics to whomever can tell you what you want to hear first. Bunch of fucking sheep, I tell ya. Government is the great fiction, through which everybody endeavors to live at the expense of everybody else. -- Frederic Bastiat
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Ididar Tzan		#4	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3846 07-04-09 7:29 AM	The media couldn't get away with it if the public wasn't buying it, wholesale. The media can only produce what sells.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
vizco		#5	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5452 07-04-09 7:39 AM Raid Peon	Since so many of the voters tend not to follow beyond the first sound bite of the TV, is it perhaps our fault that politicians are driven to avoid more complex and intelligent discussion for fear of the backlash from the majority who fail to understand (not because they can't, but because they can't be bothered)? This statement has little to do with your topic heading. One can be truthful and concise, for example. One can be truthful and entertaining. Etc. The case discussed in the article is just another example of the media jumping on a politician who says something that opens him to criticism. I would guess from what little I know of Australian politics that your media is as anti-Howard as our media was anti-Bush. "You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#6	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2427 07-04-09 1:30 PM	Ididar Tzan wrote: The media couldn't get away with it if the public wasn't buying it, wholesale. The media can only produce what sells. No, not true. The media does a lot of things based on their own perspective and agenda. There is plenty of examples where some major local media outlets go against public opinion, even after elections. The circulation of the LA Times has been shrinking but they stick to their liberal agenda.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
fatesdefiance		#7	[url]	[-]
Posts: 4989 07-04-09 3:08 PM Community Member	Klark wrote: Ididar Tzan wrote: The media couldn't get away with it if the public wasn't buying it, wholesale. The media can only produce what sells. No, not true. The media does a lot of things based on their own perspective and agenda. There is plenty of examples where some major local media outlets go against public opinion, even after elections. The circulation of the LA Times has been shrinking but they stick to their liberal agenda. Air America is another good example. Hunter Tarryn Valewalker -- Twisted Fates (Prexus - Retired) Nightshade Tarryn Valewalker -- Kingfisher Brigade EQ2 - Unrest Tarryn of Dale, Hunter -- Dies Irae LotRO - Meneldor
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Ididar Tzan		#8	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3846 07-05-09 6:43 AM	And the LA times circulation is shrinking accordingly because its not doing what people want. Not all media is shrinking accordingly. Some have not made good decisions, some have. Then again, newspapers are a bad example because print media on the whole is generally shrinking. Media is a business. Some businesses fail because they misread the people's desires, some thrive because they do it well. You can no more point at media that fail and say "look, their political agenda interfered!" than you can say that a brand of shoes failed because of trying to push a brand of shoes that people didn't like. In the case of media, a message IS the product and if people don't like the message they stop listening. Most media is doing fine with the quick soundbites and flashy presentation.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
vizco		#9	[url]	[-]
Posts: 5452 07-05-09 4:35 PM Raid Peon	The circulation of the LA Times has been shrinking but they stick to their liberal agenda. The circulation of pretty much all newspapers is shrinking. I don't think there is any indication that liberal papers are shrinking more than conservative or moderate ones. Print newspapers just don't have a business model that works any more, and no one has figured out a new business model to replace it. It's entirely possible that there is no business model that will allow something like a current newspaper to survive. "You can't reason someone out of something they weren't reasoned into." - Jonathan Swift
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Morkenlar		#10	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3130 07-05-09 8:20 PM	As long as people will accept shit, it will be financially profitable to dispense it. Mork "A government that robs Peter to pay Paul can always depend on the support of Paul"
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Ididar Tzan		#11	[url]	[-]
Posts: 3846 07-06-09 7:35 AM	Look at TV shows alone. Good quality shows are relegated to crappy time slots and usually end up canceled or scaled back after one season while utter crap that appeals to the lowest common denominator manages to make oodles of cash. The American (and Canadian) public's diet of entertainment as a whole is rather pathetic. How else does Jeff Foxworthy get onto the NY Times best seller list multiple times? Lets face facts, the public at large really doesn't have sophisticated tastes and the media has come to realize that. I would guess that as TV's became cheaper the media slowly realized that appealing to the less sophisticated was a major win for them. Back when we all remember the news (and media as a whole) being of much higher quality we have to also recall that TV's were nowhere near as prolific in homes. Most homes only had one TV, if they had one at all, and we had very few channels. Only with the explosion of channels and the explosion of cheap TV's has the media really taken the nasty turn it has.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
SourHaze		#12	[url]	[-]
Posts: 14 07-06-09 9:28 AM	I work at a conservative newspaper. I am about the most liberal voice its ever had, but it is conservative as a whole, nonetheless. We are suffering, as are the nation's largest papers. Lib or con, it really doesn't matter. The reason is simple - the internet is where people get their news now. And that's exactly where the business is moving, too. Pretty soon, editors like me will be online editors. The last paper to survive will be the Wall Street Journal.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote
Klark		#13	[url]	[-]
Posts: 2427 07-07-09 11:39 PM	Sour, is your newpaper conservative because that's the audience it is trying to sell to or is the paper just conservative by management or the established outlook it wants to present? As for the discussion, remember that media is about titillation and if-it-bleeds-it-leads. If four newspapers write neutral articles about how a politician admitted he/she was wrong, everyone would yawn. One article attacks a politician for apologizing, and it turns into a thread on a political forum.
Interact My Recent Posts Message Me Connection Invite Blocking Ignore User's Posts Report Post	Reply Quote

<< Previous Topic Next Topic >>

Add Reply

Yuku free message boards

The official Prexus message board that won't sell out.

Politicians and truth

Politicians and truth

Quick Reply