Comments on: Media Showers http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/08/30/media-showers/ As The Media Watches The World, We Watch The Media Fri, 05 Dec 2008 09:25:39 +0000 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.0.5 by: Robert M. Cerello http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/08/30/media-showers/#comment-4804 Fri, 31 Aug 2007 05:47:19 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/08/30/media-showers/#comment-4804 Some of what the author being unfortunately paid for this shallow analysis says is obviously true. But it is not science, nor important nor importantly true, I suggest. The basic equations here I claim are three: 1. What is non-ficitional information? 2. What media using what information-releasing, proof and evaluation sequences (in each case) can be effective enough in providing an objective message to a trained-enough focused-enough hearer/viewer/reader? And what is good-enough comprehension by the individual mind as target of media? The answers to these questions in the US, nation of publicly-licensed false, brainwashing advertisings, hyperbolical claims and falsified sciencse are not healthy, I argue. Atr present, there are no category-level definitions agreed upon concerning what is information; there are no normative defintions of non-fiction, its dissemination nor its apperception by human adults; and there are no restrictions placed upon those who offer non-attested beliefs, groundless evaluative attitudes and unfounded opinions rather than their opposites. In words of one syllable, people who spout postmodernist fantasy, scream about their likes and blurt idiot beliefs have the privilege of occupying public airwaves as do scientists; but scientificallytrained adult minds have no rights at all to outcompete, be treated better and differently than or have categorically-defined ideas, attested facts and standards-based evaluations preferred to tsar-permitted instances of drivel by their slaves and under stars. There is no election being conducted in the United States, I charge. No news exists; no critics practice; no "analysts" present any bona fides. So how did those not covering reality acting as non-fictional "analyts" replace scientists capable of doing the job, such as me? If 85% of the viewers do not want to hear about Paris, or political sex accusations or other nonsense, lies and negativity, then why is this drek still occupying the airwaves? Answer: no marketplace exists for non-fictional information. No categories are in place; no rights exists; no distinction is being made between nor allowed belief and attested or proven truth. And this is what is driving a nonexistent marketplace ever deeper toward financial, political and and popylar suicide: unless definitions, value standards and money change hands--the purveyors of "news" will sink to lower and lower levels of sub-depravity--because their nonpaying addicted postmodernist reality-hating victim-clients will need more and more salacious nonsense, and less and less reality-based honest statement, to feed their sick addiction to mental swill and reinforcing hate-junk information. That's how we lost our individual rights-under-regulations based bonstitution--while network news twisters were too busy, too stupid and too dishonest to report the fact. Some of what the author being unfortunately paid for this shallow analysis says is obviously true. But it is not science, nor important nor importantly true, I suggest. The basic equations here I claim are three: 1. What is non-ficitional information?
2. What media using what information-releasing, proof and evaluation sequences (in each case) can be effective enough in providing an objective message to a trained-enough focused-enough hearer/viewer/reader? And what is good-enough comprehension by the individual mind as target of
media?
The answers to these questions in the US, nation of publicly-licensed false, brainwashing advertisings, hyperbolical claims and falsified sciencse are not healthy, I argue. Atr present, there are no category-level definitions agreed upon concerning what is information; there are no normative defintions of non-fiction, its dissemination nor its apperception by human adults; and there are no restrictions placed upon those who offer non-attested beliefs, groundless evaluative attitudes and unfounded opinions rather than their opposites. In words of one syllable, people who spout postmodernist fantasy, scream about their likes and blurt idiot beliefs have the privilege of occupying public airwaves as do scientists; but scientificallytrained adult minds have no rights at all to outcompete, be treated better and differently than or have categorically-defined ideas, attested facts and standards-based evaluations preferred to tsar-permitted instances of drivel by their slaves and under stars.
There is no election being conducted in the United States, I charge. No news exists; no critics practice; no “analysts” present any bona fides. So how did those not covering reality acting as non-fictional “analyts” replace scientists capable of doing the job, such as me?
If 85% of the viewers do not want to hear about Paris, or political sex accusations or other nonsense, lies and negativity, then why is this drek still occupying the airwaves? Answer: no marketplace exists for non-fictional information. No categories are in place; no rights exists; no distinction is being made between nor allowed belief and attested or proven truth. And this is what is driving a nonexistent marketplace ever deeper toward financial, political and and popylar suicide: unless definitions, value standards and money change hands–the purveyors of “news” will sink to lower and lower levels of sub-depravity–because their nonpaying addicted postmodernist reality-hating victim-clients will need more and more salacious nonsense, and less and less reality-based honest statement, to feed their sick addiction to mental swill and reinforcing hate-junk information.
That’s how we lost our individual rights-under-regulations based bonstitution–while network news twisters were too busy, too stupid and too dishonest to report the fact.

]]> by: john polifronio http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/08/30/media-showers/#comment-4802 Fri, 31 Aug 2007 02:57:21 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/08/30/media-showers/#comment-4802 Myra Jones gets it essentially right in her post, with the execption of her assessment that media favor right wing over left wing thinking by a factor of 4 to 1; in reality, it favors right wing thinking over left wing thought, by a factor of 10 to 1. The Columbia Review is merely giving far too much leeway to conservative news and journalists. jp Myra Jones gets it essentially right in her post, with the execption of her assessment that media favor right wing over left wing thinking by a factor of 4 to 1; in reality, it favors right wing thinking over left wing thought, by a factor of 10 to 1. The Columbia Review is merely giving far too much leeway to conservative news and journalists.

jp

]]> by: Myra Jones http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/08/30/media-showers/#comment-4790 Fri, 31 Aug 2007 00:08:12 +0000 http://www.mediachannel.org/wordpress/2007/08/30/media-showers/#comment-4790 I disagree with your simplistic analysis of why people are disgusted with Mainstream media (MSM)-- which you would know if you paid attention to grassroots sources instead of the esablishment cheerleaders. Here are some of the more obvious reasons: --the MSM just don't have much to say any more. they have consolidated, cut news staff, censored and limited discussion of any topic, feature the "expert opinion" of the same tired old stable of establishment hacks-- truly diverse voices are banned. (How often do you hear Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Bill Moyer?)True news is passed up in favor of fluff. It's all Monika all the time. Or Anna Nicole. or Btitanny. it's cheaper to cover trash and you don't offend the bosses. Right wing voices outnumber progressive voices by about 4 to 1--according to media watchdogs like the Columbia Review. In addition to the poor quality of the "news", the media have added insult to injury by constantly adding commercial time and taking away program time. So you don't have to go far to see why Americans don't like or trust the media any more. For obvious and very valid reasons. I disagree with your simplistic analysis of why people are disgusted with Mainstream media (MSM)– which you would know if you paid attention to grassroots sources instead of the esablishment cheerleaders. Here are some of the more obvious reasons:

–the MSM just don’t have much to say any more. they have consolidated, cut news staff, censored and limited discussion of any topic, feature the “expert opinion” of the same tired old stable of establishment hacks– truly diverse voices are banned. (How often do you hear Ralph Nader or Noam Chomsky or Bill Moyer?)True news is passed up in favor of fluff. It’s all Monika all the time. Or Anna Nicole. or Btitanny. it’s cheaper to cover trash and you don’t offend the bosses. Right wing voices outnumber progressive voices by about 4 to 1–according to media watchdogs like the Columbia Review.

In addition to the poor quality of the “news”, the media have added insult to injury by constantly adding commercial time and taking away program time.

So you don’t have to go far to see why Americans don’t like or trust the media any more. For obvious and very valid reasons.

]]>