This page is no longer updated, and is the old forum. For new topics visit the New HOL forum.
Is Bert the Head right about media and politics?
Register | Edit Profile | Subscriptions | Forum Rules | Log In
| Hoof Hearted 11 May 16 12.35pm | |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Bias does manifest itself everywhere, but it is heavily skewed by the media giants who have more clout, look at fox news for instance and in your example Facebook in the U.S. However, the internet has meant that alternative sources of views, news and information are available on a global scale now to compete with the giants. There are not that many blogs that I'd say are above decent, but those that are, are well researched and give good arguments. They've also got a tremendous amount of readers.
Bias is bias....... Who's to say what influences people.... an innocent remark that goes viral, a misunderstood quote, political grooming by teachers........... It all has an effect once its been retweeted or other method with a bit of chinese whispers for good measure.
|
|
 Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
jamiemartin721  Reading 11 May 16 1.09pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Bias is bias....... Who's to say what influences people.... an innocent remark that goes viral, a misunderstood quote, political grooming by teachers........... It all has an effect once its been retweeted or other method with a bit of chinese whispers for good measure. Social Psychologists and linguistics studies. The interesting thing, is that the media influences, others react. People tend to miss view media such as newspapers as being bias towards 'x political party', but they aren't they're biased towards certain political objectives and ideas, determined more by the market demographics than by a political party. Whilst a newspaper, for example, may be left wing or right wing, it doesn't means its pro conservative or labour, its selling product to its readers. So the Guardian will be critical of Labour, because its not tied to the party, but its readership bias. The same applies to the Sun, the Mail, The Mirror and the Telegraph and Times. What tends to happen is that we believe that other media sources represent certain political parties, because that reinforces our own bias, and preferred media. Political parties aren't important to media product, messages and ideas are.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 11 May 16 1.17pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Social Psychologists and linguistics studies. The interesting thing, is that the media influences, others react. People tend to miss view media such as newspapers as being bias towards 'x political party', but they aren't they're biased towards certain political objectives and ideas, determined more by the market demographics than by a political party. Whilst a newspaper, for example, may be left wing or right wing, it doesn't means its pro conservative or labour, its selling product to its readers. So the Guardian will be critical of Labour, because its not tied to the party, but its readership bias. The same applies to the Sun, the Mail, The Mirror and the Telegraph and Times. What tends to happen is that we believe that other media sources represent certain political parties, because that reinforces our own bias, and preferred media. Political parties aren't important to media product, messages and ideas are. I wonder how much information is taken in by osmosis from newspapers. A lot of people don't actually buy papers but will see headlines and make judgements from this, particularly if they're seeing the same thing over and over again.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 May 16 1.18pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Bias does manifest itself everywhere, but it is heavily skewed by the media giants who have more clout, look at fox news for instance and in your example Facebook in the U.S. However, the internet has meant that alternative sources of views, news and information are available on a global scale now to compete with the giants. There are not that many blogs that I'd say are above decent, but those that are, are well researched and give good arguments. They've also got a tremendous amount of readers.
All media is propaganda. We're not capable of being independent of influence, because our minds don't work that way, we look for things that catch our attention (either that's support or to refute). The now mass media is simply the product/propaganda of a consumer society, where the market has expanded to reach more consumers, and provide influence to a wider community due the change in economic entry. News Media is produced more to influence individuals, not to inform them. It always has been, its why Communist regimes put such an emphasis on control of the press, and why capitalism puts such an emphasis on the notion of a free press (which is to say a press that is very expensive). Both really are about the psychological weaponisation of information and knowledge towards 'their' preference.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 11 May 16 1.24pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
I wonder how much information is taken in by osmosis from newspapers. A lot of people don't actually buy papers but will see headlines and make judgements from this, particularly if they're seeing the same thing over and over again. Huge amounts, there are studies I think around this. Whilst the front page Splash is about attracting attention, it also cannot be viewed 'objectively' as its the act of experiencing its content, that draws us to it. At times, its very pervasisve, I noticed I knew who people from Big Brother were, without having ever watched an episode or programme about it. This whole phenomena may not actually be a deliberate act by some sinister cabal, but a product of 'accidental design' colliding with commercial interests. I don't think people like Murdoch dictate the press, at best they just have more influence over elements of it. Its like a Frankenstein creation, you can point it in a certain direction, or employ only certain types of writers, but its actually bigger than its owners and editors, and can quite easily be a monster that turns on its master.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 03 Jun 16 9.46pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time. In 2013, a devastating report by Electronic Intifada, revealed that Raffi Berg, online editor for BBC News, was instructing journalists to skew reports on Israel-Palestine in favour of Israel. While hundreds of Palestinians were losing their lives during Israel’s eight day assault on the Gaza strip in 2012, Berg was emailing journalists with ‘guidance’ to maintain a pro-Israel tone in their reports. This from the report: In one, he asked BBC colleagues to word their stories in a way which does not blame or “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the prolonged attacks. Instead, he encouraged journalists to promote the Israeli government line that the “offensive” was “aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza.” This was despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire when it attacked Gaza on 14 November, a ceasefire which the Palestinians had been observing — firing no rockets into Israel. In a second email, sent during the same period, Berg told BBC journalists: “Please remember, Israel doesn’t maintain a blockade around Gaza. Egypt controls the southern border.” He omitted to mention that the United Nations views Israel as the occupying power in Gaza and has called on Israel to end its siege of the Strip. Israel’s refusal to do so is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860.” Edited by nickgusset (03 Jun 2016 9.48pm)
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
 matt_himself Matataland 03 Jun 16 9.50pm |
  |
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
Whichever party is in power, the Conservative party is granted more air time. In 2013, a devastating report by Electronic Intifada, revealed that Raffi Berg, online editor for BBC News, was instructing journalists to skew reports on Israel-Palestine in favour of Israel. While hundreds of Palestinians were losing their lives during Israel’s eight day assault on the Gaza strip in 2012, Berg was emailing journalists with ‘guidance’ to maintain a pro-Israel tone in their reports. This from the report: In one, he asked BBC colleagues to word their stories in a way which does not blame or “put undue emphasis” on Israel for starting the prolonged attacks. Instead, he encouraged journalists to promote the Israeli government line that the “offensive” was “aimed at ending rocket fire from Gaza.” This was despite the fact that Israel broke a ceasefire when it attacked Gaza on 14 November, a ceasefire which the Palestinians had been observing — firing no rockets into Israel. In a second email, sent during the same period, Berg told BBC journalists: “Please remember, Israel doesn’t maintain a blockade around Gaza. Egypt controls the southern border.” He omitted to mention that the United Nations views Israel as the occupying power in Gaza and has called on Israel to end its siege of the Strip. Israel’s refusal to do so is a violation of UN Security Council Resolution 1860.” Edited by nickgusset (03 Jun 2016 9.48pm) Gusset is trying to normalise socialism. Make no mistake. This is goal. f*** socialism. Edited by matt_himself (03 Jun 2016 9.52pm)
"That was fun and to round off the day, I am off to steal a charity collection box and then desecrate a place of worship.” - Smokey, The Selhurst Arms, 26/02/02 |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
 |
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 03 Jun 16 10.03pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by matt_himself
Gusset is trying to normalise socialism. Make no mistake. This is goal. f*** socialism. Edited by matt_himself (03 Jun 2016 9.52pm) That's your rebuff? Great debating skills as usual.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Bert the Head Epsom 03 Jun 16 11.11pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by jamiemartin721
Social Psychologists and linguistics studies. The interesting thing, is that the media influences, others react. People tend to miss view media such as newspapers as being bias towards 'x political party', but they aren't they're biased towards certain political objectives and ideas, determined more by the market demographics than by a political party. Whilst a newspaper, for example, may be left wing or right wing, it doesn't means its pro conservative or labour, its selling product to its readers. So the Guardian will be critical of Labour, because its not tied to the party, but its readership bias. The same applies to the Sun, the Mail, The Mirror and the Telegraph and Times. What tends to happen is that we believe that other media sources represent certain political parties, because that reinforces our own bias, and preferred media. Political parties aren't important to media product, messages and ideas are. I sort of agree but when you say "certain political objectives and ideas", I would say that because the media is owned by very rich people and neo-liberlaism is the political orthodoxy, all debates are framed to support this. They can't tell us what to think but they and and do tell us what to think about. Not totally linked but here is a link that is quite funny if people think more media outlets lead to a diverse media.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| nickgusset Shizzlehurst 12 Sep 16 3.05pm |
|
|---|---|
|
BBC mislead people over peaceful protests against war in Syria.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| Part Time James 12 Sep 16 3.06pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by nickgusset
BBC mislead people over peaceful protests against war in Syria. The BBC lying to people? Hang on, let me just get back into the chair I didn't fall out of.
|
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
| jamiemartin721 Reading 12 Sep 16 3.12pm |
|
|---|---|
|
Originally posted by Hoof Hearted
Bias is bias....... Who's to say what influences people.... an innocent remark that goes viral, a misunderstood quote, political grooming by teachers........... It all has an effect once its been retweeted or other method with a bit of chinese whispers for good measure. I'm not adverse to a bit of bias, that's an inevitable consequence of how language works. Its when the story is written to the agenda, that I have an issue. Obviously no one is free of bias, but there is a massive difference between bias and not reporting the facts.
"One Nation Under God, has turned into One Nation Under the Influence of One Drug" |
|
| Alert a moderator to this post |
|
Login / RegisterNew users
Registration is now on our new message board
Existing users
To login with your existing username you will need to convert your account over to the new message board.
Sponsors
All images and text on this site are copyright © 1999-2024 The Holmesdale Online, unless otherwise stated.
Web Design by Guntrisoft Ltd.