Welcome to the MacNN Forums.

If this is your first visit, be sure to check out the FAQ by clicking the link above. You may have to register before you can post: click the register link above to proceed. To start viewing messages, select the forum that you want to visit from the selection below.

You are here: MacNN Forums > Community > MacNN Lounge > Political/War Lounge > Gannon/Guckert

Gannon/Guckert
Thread Tools
gadster
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 09:25 AM
 
http://www.google.com/search?hl=en&l...ch&btnG=Search

Speaking of moral relativism, how is current US media any different to Pravda of old?

USSR to Pravda: You report this our way, or we disappear you. STICK.
US to FOXNNCBS: You report this our way, we give you lots a money. CARROT.

End result = same. Is one approach more moral than the other? Is STICK more likely to elicit better journalism than CARROT?

Is an unbiased press relevant to us as citizens?

Thoughts anyone?
e-gads
     
Nicko
Professional Poster
Join Date: Jan 2001
Location: Cairo
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 10:15 AM
 
I don't think morals have any place in journalism.

Also, an unbiased press is only relevant to citizens if they have the power to change what is going on. Otherwise what is it? Just entertainment I suppose. Err, infotainment.
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 10:40 AM
 
This Gannon/Gukert thing is so odd, its like reading the plot of a bad political thriller novel.
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
gadster  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 10:58 AM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
This Gannon/Gukert thing is so odd, its like reading the plot of a bad political thriller novel.
Ah, so the Gannon/Gukert + Ghosh thing hasn't registered yet?
e-gads
     
gadster  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 11:17 AM
 
Originally posted by Nicko:
I don't think morals have any place in journalism.

Also, an unbiased press is only relevant to citizens if they have the power to change what is going on. Otherwise what is it? Just entertainment I suppose. Err, infotainment.
Have to respectfully disagree with you there, Nicko. Journalists have a responsibility to be impartial REPORTERS of current events. If they are just there to be paid PR people or cheerleaders, we � the public � are entitled to know that that is what they are doing.

And you are right about the infotainment thing - to a degree. It's a scary development.
e-gads
     
Millennium
Clinically Insane
Join Date: Nov 1999
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 12:04 PM
 
First things first: there is no such thing as an unbiased press. Any report will be colored by the reporter's perspective to some degree; even a camera can only take pictures in the direction it is pointed. The only differences between media are in the directions their bias lies, and how honest they are about it. To get as close as one can to an unbiased media, one must get their information from many different sources with many different biases, while being aware of the bias in each source. The real danger comes from media outlets which are not honest about their biases. FOX News and Al-Jazeera come to mind; both claim to be unbiased when their directions and degrees of bias are obvious to anyone who doesn't fall exactly into their target markets. CNN and the BBC are more subtle and less dangerous examples, both because the degrees are less severe and because neither outlet pretends to be completely unbiased (though they're not above letting their fans do it for them). I'd actually count Limbaugh as fairly respectable as far as this goes, because although his degree of bias is pretty severe he's quite open about that fact; his counterpart on the liberal side would probably be Al Franken. Most media outlets, truth be told, fall somewhere in the middle, with relatively subtle biases but no overt claims one way or the other.

The problem nowadays is one of information overload. It has become quite easy to get a hold of numerous sources containing only biases which match one's own, and thus hear only what one wants to hear. The end result is that people who fall into this trap think they have a monopoly on the facts when in fact they do not. This is also what allows conservatives to speak of 'the liberal media' and allows liberals to complain about 'conservative bias'; in reality neither is true overall, but selective sampling -intentional or otherwise- is so easy that either side can be made to appear true.

What controls the media in the US? It could, perhaps, be said that money does, but what of that? Money is an inanimate thing. It has no opinions or desires. The people who hold it might, but there is no One True Way to wealth, and media of any bias can find all the funding it needs if it looks hard enough. I believe this is better than having that funding come from a government, which by nature of its existence as such exerts some forms of control even if it's not trying to.

As for journalism itself, it needs to be recognized that there are basically two types: reporting and analysis. Both have their place, and it would not be good to eliminate either one. This said, it's true that the two types have become increasingly muddied in recent years, so that it has become difficult to tell which is which. If this could somehow be better clarified, then it would be a good thing.
You are in Soviet Russia. It is dark. Grue is likely to be eaten by YOU!
     
MacGorilla
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Aug 2000
Location: Retired
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 2, 2005, 01:28 PM
 
Originally posted by gadster:
Ah, so the Gannon/Gukert + Ghosh thing hasn't registered yet?
Its too bizzaro
Power Macintosh Dual G4
SGI Indigo2 6.5.21f
     
gadster  (op)
Mac Elite
Join Date: Oct 2002
Location: Sydney, Australia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2005, 10:04 AM
 
Originally posted by MacGorilla:
Its too bizzaro
and getting more bizzaro by the minute...
e-gads
     
Timo
Addicted to MacNN
Join Date: Dec 2000
Location: New York City
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 4, 2005, 11:34 AM
 
Originally posted by Millennium:
Most media outlets, truth be told, fall somewhere in the middle, with relatively subtle biases but no overt claims one way or the other.
Yep. Most people, too.

The problem nowadays is one of information overload. It has become quite easy to get a hold of numerous sources containing only biases which match one's own, and thus hear only what one wants to hear. The end result is that people who fall into this trap think they have a monopoly on the facts when in fact they do not. This is also what allows conservatives to speak of 'the liberal media' and allows liberals to complain about 'conservative bias'; in reality neither is true overall, but selective sampling -intentional or otherwise- is so easy that either side can be made to appear true.
This problem has a technology or overload component (see below), but it is also an American hallmark to be provincial, like-minded, and hear only what you want to hear. I'm sure this is also true in other countries, and this was true long before we had multiple media outlets.

What controls the media in the US? It could, perhaps, be said that money does, but what of that? Money is an inanimate thing. It has no opinions or desires. The people who hold it might, but there is no One True Way to wealth, and media of any bias can find all the funding it needs if it looks hard enough. I believe this is better than having that funding come from a government, which by nature of its existence as such exerts some forms of control even if it's not trying to.
A-ha! Not money, or not just money. People who become journalists aren't necessarily in it for the cash. But there are other reward...systems. Journalists, in their arena, crave access, respect, fame and credibility -- things you and I might want to cultivate in our own particular sandboxes. We can sum these strives up as the acquisition of symbolic capital. To a certain degree symbolic capital can even be converted to real capital, but mostly at the upper reaches of the game (a star journalist with name recognition may command a huge salary as a network anchor, for example).

And then there is also a critique of the medium. If one really wants a good analysis on what's going on, take a look at this book:


A review:
http://www.thenewpress.com/books/ontele.htm

I found Bourdieu's analysis to be spot-on.
     
Secret__Police
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: May 2003
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 7, 2005, 11:23 PM
 
Anybody check out Gannon's gay escort sites? MilitaryStud or something like that.
     
zizban
Mac Enthusiast
Join Date: Mar 2005
Location: Antediluvia
Status: Offline
Reply With Quote
Mar 8, 2005, 09:56 AM
 
I tend to avoid those sites

It appears the winner here may have been involved with some stuff in South Dokata, in the Thule campaign. Strange and stranger.
"In darkness there is strength, therefore strength is darkness."
     
   
Thread Tools
 
Forum Links
Forum Rules
You may not post new threads
You may not post replies
You may not post attachments
You may not edit your posts
BB code is On
Smilies are On
[IMG] code is On
HTML code is Off
Top
Privacy Policy
All times are GMT -4. The time now is 08:17 PM.
All contents of these forums © 1995-2017 MacNN. All rights reserved.
Branding + Design: www.gesamtbild.com
vBulletin v.3.8.8 © 2000-2017, Jelsoft Enterprises Ltd.,