Conference quark::human_relations-v1

    The media elects presidents; convicts suspects; makes diseases
    important; turns products into mega-sellers (oat bran); generally
    controls thought on a large scale.  Why?
    
    Because we allow it to do so.
    
                                       Greg

agreement with both .0 & .1:

    
>  I believe that the media is extremely controlling.

 ......and extremely pervasive in rehashing things to the
 point of boredom......?    

>  Was the sexual revolution all good...do people really enjoy intimacy
>  the way Cosmopolitan and Playboy suggest...or do these impossible
>  fantasies cause frustration?
    
.......same as the above, don't know about frustration, but
DEFINITELY the Watered-Down [perverted] comercialized  rehashing 
of erotic/enjoyable fantasies is BORING, and semms to be created
by executives with juvenile attitudes..and....
                          ARRRRRGGGGGGGHHHHH.....*%$(*(@>?X#**G!!!

steve

    
    The media assures that we always know what is politically correct.

    
    	This is a issue which is a hot button for me. I feel way too
    	many people take the approach that if it's on the TV NEWS (?)
    	then it MUST be true. It seems too many people are under the
    	impression that the media is regulated in the contents it
    	spews. 
    
    	 As an example, only because I am an active gun owner and
    	shooter, I really took notice on all the reports of Assualt
    	Weapons after the Stockden, CA shootings. I noticed that each
    	time the media did a story on the dreaded Assualt Weapons that
    	the pictures they kept showing was always of the fully automatic
    	AK-47, not the ones the people can buy, the AKS-47, which is
    	semi-automatic. I also noted that the claims about the "Great
    	destructive" force of the Assualt weapson was pure out and out
    	lies, since most military weapons used are in .223 cal. Compair
    	this with a standard hunting cal. of 30-06 or a .308 and one
    	will notice the standard hunting rifle is FAR more deadly than
    	the military round. 
    
    	Does the media try to control your thinking? You bet they do,
    	they have their own vision of how they think everyone should
    	feel and act, and they pour it out to you every chance they can!!
    
    	G_B

re .3:    
  > The media assures that we always know what is politically correct.

 ....exactly, and without any further discussion as to WHY.
     It's always the EFFECT that is talked about, never the cause.

re .4:
    > many people take the approach that if it's on the TV NEWS (?)
    > then it MUST be true. 

 ...again, the EFFECTS, never the CAUSES....for example....gun control..
as an example....incidents of shootings are never discussed in terms of
someone's lack of responsibility.....the blame is placed on the gun itself.
Foreign Policy......only the "Effects on Our Security" are discussed....not
the actions by countries that bring on crisis after crisis......the whole
last decade sounded like alley-bully-talk.....with the end result becoming
.....he who has the bigger stick is morally right.

steve

    
    I guess I'm one of those who believes that until the media changes its
    priorities, sensationalism will continue to exist and thrive.  And
    let's face it, how likely is that to happen?  Yes, the media has an 
    obligation to serve the public but doesn't it have a bigger obligation
    to sell newspapers, magazines, and advertising time?  Ratings is the name 
    of the game!!
    
    News is news?  Ha!  Rather vs Brokaw vs Jennings
    
    And as someone stated earlier - we must shoulder some of the blame! 
    Afterall, no one holds a gun to our head and forces us to buy the papers 
    and watch the TV.  
    
    Kris
    
    

    re: .6 (Kris)
    
    � . . .until the media changes its priorities, sensationalism will
    � continue to exist and thrive.
    
    Amen, Kris.  And I'd go even further and suggest that the media's
    priorities are no accident.  The way I see it, those priorities
    are, for the most part, set by the consumer.  There has long been
    a significant demand in this country for the sensational style of
    journalism.  One very telling local example is the "new" Boston
    Herald.  It's new owners, realizing the potential of this demand,
    changed the format to be far more sensational than in previous
    years and sales shot up.
    
    I agree that we ". . .must shoulder some of the blame" and would
    go on to posit that when news consumers demand impartial, in-depth
    reporting, that's when we'll see media priorities change significantly.
    
    Steve

            RE:
    .7> journalism.  One very telling local example is the "new" Boston
    .7>  Herald.  It's new owners, realizing the potential of this demand,
    .7> changed the format to be far more sensational than in previous
    .7> years and sales shot up.
    
                                Steve

    Are there any noters out there who read (periodically) or subscribe
    to this "New Boston Herald" ?
    What are your opinions about the statement made in .7 about the new format?
    Can H_R and other conferences be considered part of "the media" ?

    The "new" Boston Herald is owned by Rupert Murdock, the same person who
    owns the NY Post, another newspaper not known for its journalistic
    quality. Though both are above the level of the National Enquirer, they
    are not that far above.
    
    A good indication of the "meat" in a newspaper could be studied by
    looking at the "Train Numbers". This method was developed by yours
    truly when I commuted from Long Island to NYC via the Long Island Rail
    Road. I had to change trains at Jamaica, which was about the half way
    point, which also equalled a Train Number of 1 (the time it took from
    LI to Jamaica, or Penn Station to Jamaica). A number of 2 was a
    complete 1 way ride and a 3 was a round trip ride.
    
    The New York Times earned a 3 (except for the Sunday paper which was a
       33)
    The Daily News earned a 2
    
    The NY Post earned a 1
    
    Applying these rules, the Boston Herald earns about a .75
    
    Eric

    "Media" is a plural word, a substantive point, rather than mearly a
    (proper) gramatical complaint.  Yes, we can perhaps agree to blame the
    Herald, Morton Downey, and some radio talk shows for some public
    mindlessness.  But are we also wishing to condemn, say, the Christian
    Science Monitor, the Atlantic Monthly, the 10:00 WGBH news,
    McNeil/Lehrer, All Things Considered, the New York Times, Wall
    Street Week, the Bulletin of the Atomic Scientists, and the Wilson
    Quarterly, among many others?  I think not.  Broad-brush condemnation of
    "the media" as the root of our problems is silly.  The fact that much
    of the public may heed only a narrow slice of the media, and a slice
    that strikes some of us as less than elevating, is not the fault of the
    media.
    
    		- Bruce

"The media" print, broadcast, or otherwise distribute what makes them money.

If people are buying sensationalistic, narrow-minded, and stupid stuff,
that's what the media will give them.  

If people want thoughtful intelligent insights that make them uncomfortable,
or challenge their way of looking at the world, the media will give it to
them.  

But I don't know too many people who like to pay to feel uncomfortable or
challenged.  They'd rather feel comfortable, or superior.

It's worth noting that Morton Downey Jr. was a flash in the pan -- people
stopped watching him, he went off the air. 

I think a lot of people who buy the newstand rags or watch the more mindless
talk shows do so to feel morally and intellectually superior.  "Hey, honey,
come look at what this idiot is doing now.  Can you believe a human being
would do anything that dumb?"  

There's also the factor that maybe half the US population doesn't have
the reading skills to handle the NY Times or Atlantic.  And there's a
tendency to assume that because they don't have much reading skill, they
don't have brains either.  

--bonnie

    
    	Is it simple economics, being they are giving us what we
    	are willing to buy?  Or, is it more "WHAT THE RICH UPPER
    	CLASS" wants us to buy and believe?  I tend to think it
    	is more of the latter. I feel they purchase the media to
    	serve their goals of defining what our goals should be.
    	
    	I find it rather hard to believe the shows that are being
    	spoon fed, with their proper social responses, are what
    	the masses really want to watch (thus the BIG boom in cable).
    	Most of the so called sit-coms don't have a single thing
    	that could even remotely be called humor, but they all
    	have one thing in common, and that is the hidden (not really
    	very hidden) social agenda.
    
    	The NEWS is no different, notice that once the media starts
    	on something they never let go until they have everyone
    	worked up in a frenzy and things start to go as they stated
    	it should be in their editorials. And they will go to all ends
    	to see to it we come around to their way of thinking. They will
    	out and out lie, distort, what ever it takes. I've seen it happen
    	several times, they didn't get the response they wanted, so a
    	few broadcast later they report it again, with a different twist
    	to appeal from another angle. Then, they really play it up with
    	"some expert from such and such" to show us that yes, we should
    	be frothing at the bit to do something about this.

re: .12

I think there's certainly a big element of classism to the media, and to
advertising, but I doubt that they want us to have a goal more sophisticated
or complex than persuading most people to spend a lot of money on their
products and not think too much about the implications.

The modern version of bread and circuses.

--bonnie 

    
    re:--> to the replies eluding to "it's our fault for buying newspapers"
    
    I'm sorry, but I whole heartedly disagree.....I don't buy a paper
    for X's "column"......or the goriest/juiciest story/Pictures.
    The fault comes from the Top guy's decision Which way the paper/tv
    show is going to go.  It's a pre-meditated action......which items
    line up WHERE (in the paper), and WHEN in radio/tv.  I don't think
    I'll ever hear Daniel Schorr (NPR) expound on the lady who "just
    today gave birth to alien twins"......but it might have a chance
    with Brokaw, Rather, or Jenkins.
    
    steve
    

  
re: .14

> I'm sorry, but I whole heartedly disagree.....I don't buy a paper
  >  X's "column"......or the goriest/juiciest story/Pictures.
   
I'm not saying that everyone behaves this way. 

But there are many people who do  I know a man who says he subscribes to
the Boston Herald rather than the Boston Globe because the Herald has better
comics.  

If someone's going to spend money on a paper, they're going to buy something
that they like to read.  I doubt that many people think "I'm going to buy
the goriest pictures."  It's probalby something more like "I want the
one that has the more interesting local news, like what all those ambulances
and fire trucks were rushing to on Sunday.  The Globe has all those dry and
boring finance articles."  

I wouldn't say it's "our fault"; I'm trying to point out that there are
LOTS of people who are buying, and apparently enjoying, the stuff we're 
objecting to.  It may indicate a serious social problem -- I'm not sure that
it does -- but it's certainly not so simple as saying 'the media are 
doing this to us.'

--bonnie

I'm with Bruce (.10) -- I think it is a matter of what we read.

I had an Uncle who once said that the papers should be required (by law)
to print the truth.  I responded by asking "who's truth?".  

I think it was Adm. Chester Nimitz that said "The bulwarks of our liberty
are men and women who read and think."  Think is really the key word.  We 
have to get more than one view and think about what we read/hear.  No one
ever said freedom of press would make life easy.

rng

   RE:

.11> But I don't know too many people who like to pay to feel uncomfortable or
.11> challenged.  They'd rather feel comfortable, or superior.
    
    Is that right ?  What a revelation !

.11> It's worth noting that Morton Downey Jr. was a flash in the pan -- people
.11> stopped watching him, he went off the air. 

      Some people will "sorely miss him."
    
>> I think a lot of people who buy the newstand rags or watch the more mindless
>> talk shows do so to feel morally and intellectually superior.  

        No wonder ! A classic analysis. Thanks B. Randall for making this
        clear. I had often wondered why "they read that particular paper"
    
    FaZari.

 re:15
  
  >I'm not saying that everyone behaves this way. 

  Yes, you're exactly right.

>But there are many people who do  I know a man who says he subscribes to
>the Boston Herald rather than the Boston Globe because the Herald has better
>comics.  

 But Bonnie, he Probably reads it because of the QUALITY OF CONTENT of the 
writing...whatever topic it is dedicated to....in this case ..HUMOR.


>If someone's going to spend money on a paper, they're going to buy something
>that they like to read. 

Certainly so.  Probably one of the things that drives us up a wall is the
dedication of some papers (and to some extent...TV programs) to satisfy
a certain type of mentality's need to find out how everyone else lives. 

steve

re: .18

Don't they have a right to have papers, programs, etc. dedicated to their
interests?

--bonnie

    re: .19 (Bonnie)
    
    � Don't they have a right to have papers, programs, etc. dedicated to 
    � their interests?
    
    I'd certainly say "yes".  And in the same breath I'd say that lessens
    the strength of the argument that the media "controls" our lives.
    
    Steve
         

>               -< Tried to get a mimeograph repaired recently? >-
    
     Nah- I'm not into antiques. :-)
    
     The Doctah

re: .20, Steve --

Good, 'cause I'm arguing that the media DOESN'T control the life of
anyone who doesn't want to be controlled . . .

--bonnie

    
    When it's stated that way, I definitely agree.......
    
    but ask any of the people over 50 from the eastern block.......
    ask them WHERE has that 2% journalistic_truth been for the last
    forty years?????  Was it the Feel_Good news over there...and if
    it was......for whom....?
    
    steve
    

I'm sorry, I must be getting punchy or something -- I think I missed 
your point.

Are you saying that too much feel-good or brainless news leads to
totalitarianism?  Or that totalitarian societies cover up the lack of
real free press by spewing out only feel-good news?  Or something that
I missed?

--bonnie

    
    I'm having trouble understanding where you're coming from NOW....as
    opposed to your earlier replies...I don't think we're that much
    apart....  in our society, anyone can get as many angles on a
    story/event as there wallet allows.......no problem...except that
    this society would be a lot healthier without the "ease-dropping"
    into everyone-ELSE's life[style]....I think^^#@*O(I  That's all
    I originally meant.
    
    steve
    

Okay, now I've got you.  Yes, you're right, a society that wasn't so 
interested in other people's lives would be a lot healthier.  Haven't all
these people got lives of their own?

The proliferation of magazines, tv shows, etc. catering to this weakness
would seem to be a symptom of the underlying illness, not the illness itself.  

Thanks for clarifying that for me. For some reason I couldn't
quite focus on what you were getting at the first time. 

--bonnie