StingingVelvet: So you agree it's a team effort, "the people" cannot overcome blatant media disagreement? I ask because I think assuming the media will always bend to the majority of their audience is a little dangerous, since they are a) owned by corporations, and b) tend to go against the majority when they feel it is the right thing to do.
crazy_dave: I think sometimes it is a good thing that the media (though I think it is wrong to believe the media to be monolithic) not to bend to the majority. Popular opinion doesn't get to decide what is true. Tyranny of the majority, the condemnation of democracy by a certain classical philosopher, is still tyranny. Journalists should hold to journalistic standards which should be set regardless of the issue. It still requires a subjectivity in the application that is inescapable, but if ethical standards are being held to it should be mitigated.
On the other hand I disagree that people won't act without the blessing of established media outlets. It takes something truly outrageous typically, but it can happen. The Arab spring comes to mind - Al Jeezera not withstanding much of that was driven by popular sentiment spread through social media or traditional word of mouth. That's an extreme example and may be the exception that proves the rule, but it can happen.
StingingVelvet: Right, which basically comes down to them being a business. Fear and outrage raise ratings.
Do you think a non-profit media outlet like the BBC does a better job, despite ties to the government it is reporting on?
crazy_dave: The BBC has often in the past shown a remarkable independence of the government (can't speak to today since I am not often a watcher) and pissed it off considerably. In a famous case, the BBC told the Thatcher government to go fuck themselves ... and won.
Of course not all government-run media is so independent.
I don't watch the BBC a lot, but when some "scandal" runs rampant through the media in the USA, I actually do read up on the BBCs version of events. Do I always agree with them? No, but they seem do much better fact checking than ours do...so...I do check in with them from time to time, and I can't say I often find fault with their reasoning.
I can see how in many cases, state-run media would be an issue, but what we have here in many cases appears to be media reporting by people who have certain corporations and big business' interests in mind rather than facts, which is just as bad IMO. Yes, its great that drug company just made a new pill, but when said drug company and a large media company have a very similar set of names on their board of directors...well...that's not going to turn out well for consumers trying to make an informed choice.
