Acoustic Guitar Player for World Peace - Discussion Forums

Discussion Forums

Acoustic Guitar Player for World Peace (Page 7)

profile | register | preferences | faq | search

UBBFriend: Email This Page to Someone!
This topic is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15

next newest topic | next oldest topic

Author	Topic: Acoustic Guitar Player for World Peace
Supertramp Member	posted 01-20-2003 04:09 PM quote: Originally posted by mediocre_player: Actually, I'm quite happy that there's somebody who's even bothered to see the whole picture. Some people are very one-sided. I try to be as objective as I can, realizing that of course at times I may not be able to do so. Just by being here and talking about guitars its very easy to see that we're all the same in the end and share much more than we actually think. Perhaps the solution would be for the US to drop 200,000 Martins over Iraq or something, and provide them with a cable connection Peace, --m Outstanding post. Thank you so much for taking the time to answer all those questions.If only our government was listening.
Bill Hammond Member	posted 01-20-2003 06:55 PM quote: Originally posted by DharmaBum: Point taken. Media is a term that begets generalization. But, i'd offer no similar qualification or apollogy for "popular media" or network news, or even "TV news". Heck, tried to catch some news this weekend, Bill. What i viewed from the usual suspects (fox and cnn) were wall-to-wall coverage of some kidnapping/missing person case in california which apparently occurred about a month ago! The editorial decisions are so peculiar as to lend themselves to conspiracy theories. They fed us wall-to-wall OJ, but that's probably because we deserved it. Chandra Levy and this california case don't offer enough relevance to interest even the most morbid tabloid reader: but, here we are with "live" coverage from Modesto. Anyway, the comment was not intended to slight anyone's vocation (unless they are editors with cnn or fox, in which case they're not reading this anyway, burdened as they are with weird little sordid crime stories and celebrity tidbits). PS: Never really bought into conspiracy stories, or allegations of "liberal" or "conservative" bias in mainstream, or popular media. Always seemed pretty obvious to me that their principal bias, if that's the right word, has more to do with ratings and advertising rates. But, i think it foolish to ignore that network and cable news departments are not economically adverse to war, which perhaps creates its own bias. What other explanation can there possibly be for coverage today that harkens to WR Hearst's treatment of the Spanish-American war? I'm sure Mr. Hearst had no beef with the spanish, just as today's moguls have no beef with Iraq, but they are motivated to sell their product, and their product sells better if there's some stuff blowing up. Dharm -- Thanks for making your position clearer. When folks rail against "the media," I find, it's almost always cable shows, network TV news (which does its best but is overly constrained by time and ratings), local TV and radio (ditto) and the opinion pages of local and national newspapers. Lost in all this outrage are the volumes of A and B sections of the vast majority of U.S. daily newspapers, whose editors search through an incredible volume of daily offerings from their own reporters plus hundreds of wire stories, often combining them, with the intent of giving their readers the most complete, accurate, reliable news they can find. That is how they are judged by their bosses on how well they are doing their jobs. There are legions of editors like me whose job it is to make sure that what we publish is fair, accurate, and unbiased. I mean, we could be fired if we demonstrated that we were interested in doing otherwise. In my almost 30 years in daily newspapering, I can tell you unequivocally that the most respected journalists I have worked with are those whose stories are demonstrably factual, logical, conclusive and powerful. Sometimes, they effect social change, and that can be heartening, as well. So what I am encouraging here is for no one to rely only on TV news for their daily glimpse of what is going on in the world. But please, please, people -- understand that to be informed citizens you need to read the NEWS pages of your local paper, and a good regional daily, and a national daily newspaper, in order to fully grasp the issues of the day. Don't sit back and watch 11 minutes of CBS or ABC news and then bitch about bias. Those guys don't have the TIME to be biased.
samchar Member	posted 01-20-2003 08:16 PM Bill, I couldn't agree more with your assertion that a learned person should read newsprint. IMHO, I'd shoot for the local and regional paper. I also like news magazines because they can dive into background with less of a focus on being real time. However, the prevalent national daily (ie: USA Today) is one step above the National Enquirer. Papers going to its format of splashy headlines and color graphics represents the dumbing down of our culture caused by television's impact on all media. Fact is we have shorter attention spans caused by the TV media itself. One comment, I find bias more prevelant in network TV news BECAUSE of the time they have to report. When you have the time to lay out the relevant facts, as in some newsprint, some periodicals, and even some network TV "focus" type shows, two things can happen: First, you can look REALLY obviously biased because you've pounded a one-sided viewpoint, either intentionally (editorial) or unintentially ad nauseum (posing as fact). Or second, you can bring in both sides of a story, or at least two opposing viewpoints, easier. However, with network news, the bias isn't in the delivery, it's in the editing -- and I don't think it's intentional, but often laughable. Because of the pace and the soundbyte, editing a story down to some "essence" of the facts is needed. But, I find that the stories that get highlighted, the angle of the stories, the sources relied upon as gospel, the mindset going into the content --way, way more liberal than the country. Maybe not liberal for the coasts and some metro areas, but way more liberal than the median population.
DharmaBum Member	posted 01-21-2003 08:40 AM sam: I've always been inclined to conclude that "TV news" sine quo non is ratings. If they perceive their major market to be urban, middle class folks, i expect them to pitch hard to that audience. If there were a market for anarchists, i'm certain that there would be a media voice to serve it. So, i posit that the editorial bias is actually a demographic bias, intended to elicit ratings. Take the peculiar fixation that metwork TV news has with 1) celebrities and 2) gruesome crime stories. A liberal may object because of the failure to cover meaningful stories, or argue that there is some inherant class or race discrimination with respect to such stories. A conservative, on the other hand, could bemoan the networks pandering to the "hollywood crowd", and feel that the crime stories were pussyfooting around the "real problem" of not enough god in public schools, or something. In other words, it's like some wierd rohrschak (sp?) test, where partisans of either side see the opposite bias. But, i'll ever suspect that the only real goal of the network news departments is to attain higher ratings than the competition. I can see no other explanation for the sad carousel of celebrities and crime that we witness on network news. Wherever there's a demographic to support a style of media, it will flourish. There aren't enough anarchists to sustain a network, but consider the strange saga of Fox News. Obviously, there's a lot of folks who enjoy public displays of outrage, so now they have a whole network that will bring them stories of how commies from Mars are undermining society. Angry hosts raise pitchfork and torch to defend the world from infidels and evil scientists. Ironically, this is brought to them by the same network that seems to have abandoned all taste or class in its entertainment programing, recognizing no decent limits. So, is Fox biased, politically? I say no: they are just playing, very well to two disparate audiences: The entertainment division is trying to rope in the hormonally-addled adolescents, ever drooling for peurile displays of sex and violence, while the news division is pitching to the anti-intellectual shut-ins, anxious to hear what new plot is being hatched by satan, or clinton, to despoil their once pristine world.
TDR Member	posted 01-21-2003 10:07 AM Some fair and balanced reporting there.
Bill Hammond Member	posted 01-21-2003 10:24 AM I don't know if I agree with everything you wrote, Dharma, but I love your writing!
Arch Monkey Member	posted 01-21-2003 10:53 AM quote: Originally posted by Bill Hammond: Dharm -- Thanks for making your position clearer. When folks rail against "the media," I find, it's almost always cable shows, network TV news (which does its best but is overly constrained by time and ratings), local TV and radio (ditto) and the opinion pages of local and national newspapers. Lost in all this outrage are the volumes of A and B sections of the vast majority of U.S. daily newspapers, whose editors search through an incredible volume of daily offerings from their own reporters plus hundreds of wire stories, often combining them, with the intent of giving their readers the most complete, accurate, reliable news they can find. That is how they are judged by their bosses on how well they are doing their jobs. There are legions of editors like me whose job it is to make sure that what we publish is fair, accurate, and unbiased. I mean, we could be fired if we demonstrated that we were interested in doing otherwise. In my almost 30 years in daily newspapering, I can tell you unequivocally that the most respected journalists I have worked with are those whose stories are demonstrably factual, logical, conclusive and powerful. Sometimes, they effect social change, and that can be heartening, as well. So what I am encouraging here is for no one to rely only on TV news for their daily glimpse of what is going on in the world. But please, please, people -- understand that to be informed citizens you need to read the NEWS pages of your local paper, and a good regional daily, and a national daily newspaper, in order to fully grasp the issues of the day. Don't sit back and watch 11 minutes of CBS or ABC news and then bitch about bias. Those guys don't have the TIME to be biased. Bill, To be an informed citizen, what you have to do, is realize the "News" is a product. A Newspaper editor's ultimate job is to sell newspapers. Newspaper articles are selected, edited and placed in the paper with that in mind. Pay attention to the facts and not their interpretation. A US newspaper will report a rocket attack in Gaza as "Israel reacting to terrorism." a paper in Cairo will say that Israel "terrorized" Gazans by bombing a police station. Unbiased reporting would be "Israeli Troops Destroy Police Station" with a quote from each side. There is always bias. That is simply human nature. But then I only very occaisionally read "A good regional newspaper" so how can I be well informed enough to have a valid opinion? [This message has been edited by Arch Monkey (edited 01-21-2003).]
Bill Hammond Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:03 AM quote: Originally posted by Arch Monkey: Bill, To be an informed citizen, what you have to do, is realize the "News" is a product. A Newspaper editor's ultimate job is to sell newspapers. Newspaper articles are selected, edited and placed in the paper with that in mind. Pay attention to the facts and not their interpretation. (This is not true, but is widely believed. Business managers at the newspaper worry about selling and marketing the product. The advertising department sells ad space. We get what is left. And we do NOT make editorial decisions based on what will cause the paper to be more buyable. We make those decisions based on journalistic factors -- how NEW is the news, how important, how relevant to our readers' lives, how unexpected, how outrageous -- although I will be the first to admit that a really hot breaking story will sell more papers, and we sure don't mind that and we do want the paper we work for to be financially solvent so we don't lose our jobs. But no one from the publisher's side of things interferes with our news play or selection decisions. And that is that case at most major metro papers.) A US newspaper will report a rocket attack in Gaza as "Israel reacting to terrorism." a paper in Cairo will say that Israel "terrorized" Gazans by bombing a police station. (Can you show me an example of this from a major U.S. metro paper?) Unbiased reporting would be "Israeli Troops Destroy Police Station" with a quote from each side. There is always bias. That is simply human nature. But then I only very occaisionally read "A good regional newspaper" so how can I be well informed enough to have a valid opinion? Sorry you are so upset, Arch. I didn't realize I had said anything that provocative.
AlanC Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:06 AM I must rouse myself from my torpor to disagree with the esteemed Mr.Bill. They don't have time to be biased? Brokaw found time to tie the gun used in the D.C. slayings to a Bush supporter. He went out of his way to do so; it was the perfect opportunity to hit Bush, Big Business, Campaign Finance, and gun control all in one whack and lay it at Bush's feet. They had time to run Ed Meece out of town for a pair of cuff links. Compare his treatment to the free pass the Clintons got. Did you EVER see ANY of the big three "newsmen" ask him ONE tough question? Not me! I saw them kiss his posterior several times. They create their media frenzy at their whim, deciding which story to just mention and which one to hammer depending on their bias and world view and then blandly say "the story had 'legs'-give me a break, they are the legs. When have you ever seen a story on network news of a woman damaged in an abortion? When have you ever seen a story on a law abiding citizen using a properly registered firearm to save a life or prevent a crime? It must not happen or surely they would have reported it. When reporting Clinton's messes they would report something like this: "Republicans charge that FBI files were illegally obtained...blah blah blah. "Republicans cry foul over Travel Office abuses..blah blah blah.. Isn't it amazing how the homeless disappear during a Democratic regime? That never ceased to amaze me. Where did they all go? Oh, what the heck, who cares? Its all good! Les Bonton Roullieux! [This message has been edited by AlanC (edited 01-21-2003).]
samchar Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:12 AM quote: Originally posted by DharmaBum: so now they have a whole network that will bring them stories of how commies from Mars are undermining society. Angry hosts raise pitchfork and torch to defend the world from infidels and evil scientists. Darn, I haven't seen that one. Commies from Mars. (Good one, Dharmabum!) Is Gingrich one of the pundits on that one? I don't watch Fox that much mainly because of the entertainment programming you mention. However, I do think a couple of their news shows make the ONLY effort at presenting "two sides" to a story instead of assuming, like many other networks do, that the liberal cause of the moment is always a crisis. Bernard Goldberg did media watchers a favor when he wrote "Bias". I found his thesis nearly without question. (I'm sure there are those who beg to differ.) IMHO, Fox New isn't perfect, but they at least have effort working for them. Fox will have a conservative and a liberal discuss issues. Other networks have a liberal and a moderate discuss issues. Or, just good ol' liberal Dan or Peter giving you the "facts". But hey, without those guys to thank, Fox News wouldn't exist. By the way, anybody seen the Saturday Night Live "Hardball" sketches? Funny enough to make you wet yourself.
Bill Hammond Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:15 AM I never heard about that Brokaw angle on the sniper case, will have to look into its history, as that does sound most alarming. I watch all three networks in random order -- I am generally most aware of how similar they all are, how the anchors seem to do little more than read wire copy that they have tarted up a little (especially Rather) and I rarely see or hear anything that strikes me as biased. I do see a lot of things that strike me as dumb, inaccurate, and unworthy of our interest, though.
Arch Monkey Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:23 AM Bill, I'm not upset at all. I'm just putting my two cents into the discussion. You have basically said that all newspaper editors are unbiased and that it is impossible to be well informed without reading their work. I found that to be amusing. No process which involves human decision making is entirely objective. And yes an editor deciding what is "newsworthy" is such a selection. I've been to several events covered by diverse media, I've even had a few stories published and edited. There is always an angle. Nothing is truly objective. I had a look through the online version of your paper looking for headlines similar to my example. To the paper's credit. I couldn't find one. I was refering to a story I saw about a month ago. There were similar headlines in a couple of papers and on the CBC radio website.
MediocrePlayer Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:25 AM quote: Originally posted by Bill Hammond: Yeh, everything printed in the world's thousands of newspapers and magazines, and seen on TV and radio, carries relatively little value. In fact, it is all so worthless that we need to put quotation marks around the word "news" because everything produced by that sector is incompetent and biased and could not possibly qualify as news. And all lawyers are corrupt liars and all doctors are money-grubbing butchers. It's so simple! Well, at least according to one of your posts, it was so simple for you to conclude that every male muslim between the ages of 17 and 40 is a potential terrorist, no?
Bill Hammond Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:36 AM quote: Originally posted by MediocrePlayer: Well, at least according to one of your posts, it was so simple for you to conclude that every male muslim between the ages of 17 and 40 is a potential terrorist, no? MP, I have made no such conclusion at all. What I attempted to do the other day was present a FACTUAL account of instances that show why there is in many people's minds warranted justification for paying attention to people of certain ages and backgrounds. And if all those tragedies had been caused by 80-year-old Swedish grandmothers, I would feel the same way about applying profile attention to them.
Bill Hammond Member	posted 01-21-2003 11:43 AM quote: Originally posted by Arch Monkey: Bill, I'm not upset at all. I'm just putting my two cents into the discussion. You have basically said that all newspaper editors are unbiased and that it is impossible to be well informed without reading their work. I found that to be amusing. (I did not say that. I said that they are judged by their bosses on how well they can present the news in an unbiased way. Of course we as individuals have our own sets of biases, but those biases are all over the map and one does indeed learn very quickly to leave them at home as much as possible and come to work with an open mind and a strong intellectual curiosity. As for whether it is possible to be well informed without reading a good daily paper, I was suggesting only that anyone who watches a network and a local TV newscast daily, and nothing more, is not going to be a well informed citizen.) No process which involves human decision making is entirely objective. And yes an editor deciding what is "newsworthy" is such a selection. I've been to several events covered by diverse media, I've even had a few stories published and edited. There is always an angle. Nothing is truly objective. I had a look through the online version of your paper looking for headlines similar to my example. To the paper's credit. I couldn't find one. I was refering to a story I saw about a month ago. There were similar headlines in a couple of papers and on the CBC radio website. We never succeed totally in being completely fair and neutral and objective. What bothers me is how many members of the public honestly believe that journalists do not WANT to be fair, neutral and objective.

This topic is 15 pages long: 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 10 11 12 13 14 15 All times are PT (US)	next newest topic \| next oldest topic
Administrative Options: Close Topic \| Archive/Move \| Delete Topic
	Hop to:

Contact Us | Acoustic Guitar Central

Powered by Infopop www.infopop.com © 2000
Ultimate Bulletin Board 5.45c