The press is very important to a Republic. So I thought it would be great to get an idea of what you all read to get your information. Plus, with major city newspapers hurting, should the government help? And do you think the internet is better or worse for the media?
i think that print media is better than video media because print is less manipulative. the tricks to video media are real greasy. I feel like the internet is a good thing for government. The more information is available to more people much more easily. Informed voters are crucial to the success of the government so i think the internet is a plus. Of course there are drawbacks. Anyone can post anything on the internet so false information can spread just as quickly true and helpful information.
ReplyDeleteas far as the government helping newspapers, that seems like a really sticky situation. the media is supposed to keep the government in check, or at least something like that. And if the government is getting its hands into that jar...well i just don't know.
I would agree with you nathan on this one. Print is by far better than video/photo. Images bread on our emotions, which a lot of the time gets in the way of our reason. A great example of this was the Boston Massacure in 1775(?) Paul Revere's image is what got people all boiling with anger, and it was John Adams who tried to use reason to figure out the issue.
ReplyDeleteI agree that the internet is a good thing. The only thing I have against it, is how the reader can focus on what he/she wants to read and can block out other points-of-view or issues. But it is very important, and any regulation of the internet by the government must be stopped!
I agree with you again nathan (hey we found a subject we agree on) about government helping newspapers. The failure of these newspapers are a sign that the newspapers have fallen away from their readers. We talked about this before, but Time magazine has now put obama on the front page of their news over 13 times in the last year or so. That is insane. In addition their was a reasearch study that found the media in the last 100 days covered obama more than Bush and Clinton combined. The media's failure to question bush in going iraq, is another example of how the media is no longer doing their job. On the radical far-left bloggers, who were discredited by the main media said something, and they were considered anti-american. It is american to question everything the government does and says. If we don't question the government and ask the simple question, why, we are the fools. Krystal Nacht, was never really questioned on why the germans were doing it. I wonder if anyone who was throwing a brick into a jewish business stopped and asked, "um...why are we doing this?" wow that kind of turned into a rant. I'm just frustrated with people on both sides not asking the questions. The singer buffet was showned talking about how he like obama and that we all should get behind him 100% and follow him. Isn't that what hannity said about bush in 2001 about Iraq? That's what the reporter should of asked. Instead he just agreed. Those who bashed bush, are not signing obama praises just like the people praised bush. And the people that praised bush are now bashing obama.
As someone who studied media in college and been around it for a few years, I have a lot of mixed thoughts about it.
ReplyDeleteI don't think we're anywhere close to understanding how the Internet is changing our world. I think its great for government, business and whowever else, because a message can rapidly be brought to the public. But your right Scott, people can block out things that they just don't agree with or things that won't help their argument. Doesn't that happen with everything, including video, print etc? There shouldn't be regulation for sure, but I think that we should do whatever we can to protect identities, children and the like without infringing on any rights.
Watching the death of newspapers really hits home for me. I remember reading my first New York Times my sophomore year in school and looking forward to the Sunday edition and figuring out a way to pay for it. There is some romance to physcially reading the news in this form.
But I agree with both of you, news needs to get back to analazing things, not just spitting events out at us. I get picked on for reading Foreign Affairs by some who think all the information in it is already outdated by the time it gets in my hands. While the news might not be as current, the themes and ideas still are valuable to apply to the next crisis or issue I read about else where. I'm able to have a different thought then, "oh my god where did that come from". I'm able to sit back and think about why the event came about and what it means in the grand scheme of things. Media needs to do a better job of getting back to that.
I'm a big fan of Newsweek because I feel like they have some really good writers and offer a lot of interesting opinions. I don't think Obama will get a free ride forever. His predeccessor left him with an opportunity to have a longer honeymoon than usual. But remember, Roosevelt didn't get a free ride his whole presidency either.
I would even like Republicans to actually take the lead and ask some questions instead of just saying no to everything. I would like one party to have at least one original and thought out idea, whether its good or bad. Just give me something. Mini-rant over.
to tie the last two threads together, i think that a problem with the media nowadays, a reason why people can ignore the things they don't like, is because the media is becoming(?) so biased. It is so difficult to find balanced reporting that you can tune into msnbc or fox news and hear and see exactly what you want. (but the system has set itself up like that since they need ratings to survive, or at least be number one, so if they show you something you don't want to see you'll change the channel and they'll lose revenue, ratings, whatever). That situation of only hearing one side of the issue and only the issues that whichever network wants you to see exacerbates the partisan politics. Its evident, as well as incredibly sad and pathetic, in how the bush fans are now bashing obama and the old bush bashers are jerking it to obama.
ReplyDeleteIts sad that the newspapers are struggling. I really love print news but who knows how long it will last. People get so much news off the internet now for free that they don't want a $500 subscription to the NY Times.
http://www.nytimes.com/2009/05/02/us/politics/02enviro.html?_r=1
ReplyDeletethis is an article in the new york times about how the government and media should talk about global warming, but i think it goes to every subject. What they are really saying is, dumb everything down like you are talking to a kindergardener. so drop the word environment and replace it with "the air we breathe, the water our children drink".
I'm insulted by this and sad that this switch of words will work on the american people.
but this goes for all subjects too. Sec. of state clinton said she was going to use "smart power" whatever that meant.
We the People are not children!
smart power is just a way to brand with confidence the new administrations actions abroad. it's the kind of influence this administration is hoping to exert. it's also an explicit diss to the kind of power used in the recent past.
ReplyDeletethis exercept from the la times illustrates 'smart power' well:
"Smart power is the combination of hard and soft power. Soft power is the ability to get what you want through attraction rather than coercion or payments.... The resources that produce soft power for a country include its culture (when it is attractive to others), its values (when they are attractive and not undercut by inconsistent practices) and policies (when they are seen as inclusive and legitimate)."
"In 2001, columnist Charles Krauthammer argued for what he called "a new unilateralism," which recognized that the United States was the only superpower and was so strong that it could decide what was right and expect others to follow because they had little choice. But this style turned out to be counterproductive. Insensitivity to style and the perception of others can undercut soft-power efforts."
Instead of boasting like a caveman about being the most powerful leader and ordering everyone to follow, it's more about being "smart like a fox". I'm not suprised Secretary Clinton emphasized soft power. With all due respect, smart power is a very feminine idea.
quotes from:
http://www.latimes.com/news/opinion/commentary/la-oe-nye21-2009jan21,0,3381521.story
great post! i hear what you are saying about smart power. and after reading the definition of smart power by the la times, it makes some good sense. welcome to the blog sara.
ReplyDelete