The Nature of News (1 Viewer)

[Btipton]

Lets be clear here.
News networks: tv, papers, radio, internet are not in the business of informing the everyday man of what he needs to know about the government.

They're in the business of making money, just like you, just like me. All professions create money makers in America.

News broadcasts can only become influential or capture you're interest by denaturing the very facts they report on. Otherwise multiple businesses would have never risen to power.

The very idea of people griping about bias in the media makes me giggle with joy. There is no noble mission of journalists to discover the truth, if this lies anywhere in one of them it's the fame they're worried about, not you.

It doesn't take the brightest bulb in the box to figure this out. With a simple exercise in thought you too can discover this!

You might as well whine about how doctors charge for saving lives. It's in their nature. There is no noble purpose, take away his pay, I guarantee he won't show up for work the next day, won't track down his patients to help them anymore.

News and Bias are synonymous, get over it.

 

[John Dos Passos]

Really now, Btipton, your argument predisposes any altruistic motives in life.

Bullshit. Some (not many) doctors (not many) care about their fellow human beings more than they do money.

As well, some newsmen have a penchant to report the truth (well, maybe only a few).

But still, that "some" and that "few" are all we got.

Don't denigrate them. They are good people.

But of course they have thier faults.

 

[Btipton]

You really have made no valid point against my argument. You simply have stated an altruistic point of view without a base.

Like I said before, take away their pay and see if they come back to work or track down the people they help. They never will.

Just because you take my point of view as anti-altruistic doesn't mean it's wrong. Better luck next time. Use spell check too.

 

[Navy Seal Patriot]

They're in the business of making money, just like you, just like me.

Most of your article gist of media = biased info has been basis of many books exposing that truth for decades. But I disagree with the money quotient in some instances--media conglomerates are owned by individuals/shareholders who in turn are part of the econo-industrial-military-political-religio complex and use their mouthpieces (aka media) to protect money interests--so even though much money making opportunities can be pursued for that particular media outlet--in the broad scheme of things promoting something other than what protects or encourages belief, control, profit in another arena will not result in any profit from the other fields of power owned or profited from the shareholders-owners. An easy example; a media outlet really plugging on how this third party candidate is cool and hip, smart and doing it in a supposed fair, informative way and then having many articles criticizing everything the DEMs and GOP do everyday in the paper--of course you cannot find this in a mainstream paper because the power base is via Dems or the GOP cabal--at this time.

 

[Btipton]

I think Machiavelli would simply tell you that a Prince must look good, but not act as such. That some of these actions they do are simply there in order for him to stay in power and are just as much important as when he needs to be fierce.