Quote:
Originally Posted by TTBRAHWTMG 
The business end of it are providing news to make money. To sell papers and the advertising in those papers. To gain listeners to their news station, so they can command more money for advertising. To gain viewers to their news programs, so that they can get more money from channels or networks, who are willing to pay more because they can demand more, again for advertisement. So the pressure mounts to adjust editorial control in the manner in which they believe would appeal to more audience. Additional objectivity is lost.
The media will change their style when we change our demand. Suits which parties? Facilitates what hidden agendas? I don't understand this part. There is no hidden agenda of the media...there is a very open agenda...figure out what we are interested in knowing about...report on those things from within the confines of their personal biases, although as individuals probably as objectively as they can...and to some extent, as collective organizations, adjust the content and the style in which they present the information in a way that they believe it will appeal. Find out what they want to buy, and sell it to them. |
Uhhm,my humble opinion:news is just that: news.It shouldn't have 'appeal'.
I am trying to find out if there is possible bias in the gathering of news,the editorial treatment of it,the broadcasting and presentation of it,the treatment of possible feedback on the news,e.g. of people pointing out inaccuracies,outright falsehood,editorial prejudice,etc.To me it's fascinating that everybody is reasoning from a Western perspective,I've never proceeded from this Western bias.Remember,there are people living in Zimbabwe,Russia,China,Iran......You think the media are all free over there?
true journalism should be financially independent,pluriform,with no
de facto or
de jure censorship,possibly only bound by the limits of good taste,but then again,what is 'good taste'?