Does the media play into our fears?

[[CAKE]anonymity]

It seems that every negative thing the media states that is negative we will start to fear it. Terrorism and world war 3 I think are what people tend to fear the most right now. It seems like whenever you turn on the news they are talking about terrorism. Especially when they do their world wide news coverage. A more comical example of this would have been around September through late December of 1999 (Y2K). The uneducated members of our society said many paranoid things around this time, solely because of what they heard on the news. I know you guys are educated when it comes to computers, so you wouldn’t fear this. What about things where no one is really educated on it, terrorism for example all we can really base our fears on is what we hear on the news like what many people did in the late 1999.

[jabbahunt]

it is what it, it is. Do you stay home because you might get hit by a car while crossing the road, or hit by a stray gang bullet you weren't expecting. Everyone reacts differently to everything. You can hardly ask to people the same thing and get the exact reaction.

[Wha?]

Two things will increase ratings (and therefore revenue from sponsors); sex and suspense. Think slasher flick.

[kermit]

i don't exactly know what you are getting at. i think it's obvious that the media plays into our fears. it's how they sell time to advertisers.

[Wanksta]

Ya it does like commercials with DWI and stuff like that and the news.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

Since news corporations indirectly get their money by the amount of people watching it, they try to get as many people to watch it, but what makes people watch it, is what makes me not want to watch it. What im getting at is if the media reports on a group of scientists saying that group of soft fluffy bunny rabbits are poisonous and will be the supreme being of the planet in 72 hours or less (similar to the rabbit in Monty Python) and less then an hour later the media will release something dismissing this and proving the "scientists" was actually a 5 year old who had a bad dream. There will be a massive bunny retaliation.

Sometime in the mid 30's a radio program stated that Aliens had invaded the earth and are taking over major cities such as new york and washington. Massive rioting took place, basically the largest pile of crap hitting the largest fan you could possibly think of. This was a story mistaken for a news report. Orson Wells i think was the name of the broadcaster.

[GRITS]

I think fear is a word that means different things for different people. I took precautions for Y2K but did not go to extremes. I am concerned about terrorism and about the threat of nuclear war but I do not let this anticipation dictate my daily life. I fear racists and bigots because of the irrational way they think and the daily contact that I endure but I will not let them frighten me into believing the same as they do. Although the media may try to elicit fear and conformity the educated/informed people will weigh all the information and make a decision based on what they hear and believe. There is no way around the impact that the media has on all of us. How we choose to use this information is what makes us different. I had a colleague at work that ordered gas masks for his whole family, after 9/11, lots of people laughed at how he ‘over reacted’… what if he had of proved to be the smart one? View things with an apprehensive eye and make your choices based on what you trust and the affect you are willing to let it have on you and your lifestyle.

[kermit]

What im getting at is if the media reports on a group of scientists saying that group of soft fluffy bunny rabbits are poisonous and will be the supreme being of the planet in 72 hours or less (similar to the rabbit in Monty Python) and less then an hour later the media will release something dismissing this and proving the "scientists" was actually a 5 year old who had a bad dream. There will be a massive bunny retaliation.

wtf?!...:lol:

[[CAKE]anonymity]

Ok ill explain my thought process. What will make people believe this is not the content of it, but the fact that a group of scientists said it, and the media relaying that message. You heard on the news, which is a credible source, about professionals in the fields about late breaking research. The point is that if you hear something on the news, its already gone through the he/she says, the broken telephone syndrome. Yet we believe it. There are exceptions that people will actually think about it, but the majority will not. Can someone tell me why? Just spew out your crack pot theories :thumb:

[GRITS]

gullible public? naive? lazy? a desire to want to believe? too trusting?


resident 'crackpot'

[[CAKE]anonymity]

Lazy and too trusting are definitely believable. I think it might actually be a bit simpler. People are pretty impulsive, and their actions will prove this, yet I’m sure mentally they will be impulsive as well, formulating premature opinions. The Orson Wells story is a great example of that, all people had to do was to change to another "news" program to see if it’s legit, something this major all the news programs will be playing it.

Thank you GRITS for your crackpot theories. I think I will elevate the status of them to half baked theories:P
Keep them coming ladies and gentleman :thumb:

[GRITS]

ok how about a twist...."Miracle diet pills, exercise, machines" you name it....I get so frustrated when I see people putting so much money and time into pills that will "make the weight fall off" or a diet that "lets you eat anything and still lose weight" now if this was real dont you think some news media would have picked up on it and it would be all over the news? By the time it is a reality people wont believe it.

[FreeFall]

ok picture this.. you're watching CNN go on and on about war, death, poverty...next something GOOD!! Diet pills that really work. . . .it's like that sesame sreet game:
A)War
B)death
C)poverty
D)Diet Pills that work

Which one doesn't belong?

[Guest]

It's like this. If you know something about the subject in which they are talking, you know what to take with a pinch of salt and what to believe. Some people are not so accustomed to what to do when they DON'T KNOW. Instead, they believe what they read because it's in a reputable place.

Millions of people buying the paper can't surely be wrong?!

Oh, and the earth is the center of the universe too, isn't it ?

[Wha?]

I'm with netniv on this, people are more easily swayed when they have no concept of a subject, and are harder to sway once they have one.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

I have seen news programs that deal with weather these things work or not. It was probably market place on CBC, for those who dont know its basically a consumer warning show. I didnt watch it because i really dont need to lose weight, it would just be unhealthy. I think people do suspect something when companies are trying to sell them something. A news agency is supposed to be bias free and report on the facts, but a commercial doesnt have to be. Humans seem to have a problem with giveing something in a non biased form, so maybe we should increase the bias' in news to make it more visable (another one of my crackpot theories, im on a roll today B))

[SoulEvan]

!!! NOTICE !!! - - - By reading this post, you hereby acknowledge that everyone will have their own point of view(unless they're mindless lambs). You also confirm that you are going to get worked up and give me something fun to read, but agree to be mature no matter what this jackass types. Have fun with it. If you want to get serious, go run for the greens or something. :rolleyes:(Amazingly enough, before 9/11 the greens were pressing for cockpit doors with higher durability and reliability.)


Oh, by the way. I'm a liberal...for the most part. Psshh...it's a political party, I'll pick and choose what I like about the liberal getup. :D

A news agency is supposed to be bias free and report on the facts

????

Perhaps, but they certainly don't provide anywhere near all of the facts,
and half of the crap you will hear everyday is exactly that. Craptacular! Woo!

~~ S.H. is hiding/using/manifesting weapons of mass destruction! ~~
Yeah, the media really never likes to say it, but they haven't found any weapons of mass destruction, and the only weapons of "mass destruction" that I can think of are the chemical agents we sold Saddam in the past.

~~ Bush thinks that he is acting out the will of God! ~~
Okay...first of all I don't appreciate at all that this guy is saying that my(and others) vengeful, yet loving, God has given Bush the path of destruction. Hey, it worked for Osama's morale!

~~ Saddam has ties with Al Queda! ~~
Okay, Bush exhausted this statement. But the fact of the matter is that Osama is a Muslim extremist. Saddam built Iraq as majorly secular and mildly liberal country. Although he doesn't mind pulling a few limbs. Probable implication? Osama hates Saddam. Aside from Saddam's evil ways, he invaded Kuwait which brought the evil American scum into the middle east.

~~~~ Bush is the good guy! The liberals just keep attacking him! ~~~~
Uhh....what the heck is a liberal? It's become such a nasty term that even the liberals are too chicken-shat to be liberal. The American people as a whole are mostly liberal so far as their beliefs go, so why do so many of them vote Republican? Republicans are leaders. They may be greedy and icky, but they're leaders. Democrats spend so much time covering their asses and attacking Republicans that they're never spending time being liberals or leaders for that matter. So, when you're a leader that most people don't agree with how do you get support?

FEAR! Oh, goodness gracious no!

A country in fear's gonna want someone who'll do something than just talk and try to raise their paycheck(*cough*Clinton*cough* It's just too bad for him that he didn't end up getting the pretty new paycheck.). Now, Bush may not be very intelligent, but he's a very appropriate puppet. It's as if he's so dumb that it works for him. Kind of like that utterly fugly puppy that's amazingly cute as hell. Fun to make fun of, but just too cool for school...seriously.

Who's number one? WHO'S NUMBER ONE?!?!? THE U.S.A.!!! THAT'S WHO!!! If you don't agree we'll just incarcerate you for something stupid like that poster on your wall. That's looking pretty anti-American. Been to the middle-east lately?

And reliability? Hah! Bush wouldn't even listen to the CIA when he was informed that there was practically no chance of weapons of mass destruction threatening us from Iraq. But it's like when your wife or girlfriend catches you in a lie. Just keep repeating the lie and eventually everyone will eat it. Of course it might take a little effort to get them to digest. Like last night's leftovers.


Clinton got kicked out of office for sleeping with an intern and lying about it. We got a few laughs, a few grunts of disgust, but we also got an impeachment.

Bush lied about weapons of mass destruction to send American kids to die in a country for oil. He sent the country in an uproar of fear and anger. We've killed over twice as many Iraqi innocents throughout our campaign so far than the accused devil Osama had on 9/11. Twice as many? Our smartbombs have got to be pretty dumb to deal that many unintended deaths.

This guy is not only still in office, but he was never even tried for impeachment.


By the way, here's something to think about. How did Osama oversee the progress of the "sleepers" and the attacks of 9/11? Hooked up to a dialysis in a cave in a country some 10,000 miles away where most people don't even have methods of telecommunication. Not only that, but he ran around from cave to cave. In that country? They must simply have a dialysis in every third cave. It takes some serious training, discipline and devotion to inject yourself into American society. Never bring attention to yourself as you train to become a professional aviator. Then sacrifice your life to attack a yuppie colony. Nothing against any of the victims of 9/11. On the contrary I did my mourning for the loss of all of those families. Of course this isn't the only target. You have a random field and a side wall of the pentagon to obliterate in the name of Allah.

Personally, I really wouldn't be surprised if nearly all of what we get spoonfed is either a load of steaming shat or a tip to an iceberg of political goodness.


Well, have fun! ^_^

[Guest]

Didn't the Greens want the cockpit doors to be constructed with no animal testing in the process?:P

You noticed that I didn't say ANYTHING about Soul's post. I'm through with political debates. Everyone
will have their opinion and think what is right. I had an epithany and decided why debate left and right
anymore...it just gets everyone mad.

[SoulEvan]

Naaah, my true goal in debating politics is to achieve an understanding with the other person.

Seriously, there are a lot of qualities that I like about conservatives, and notice that I didn't let liberals off the hook either. They both have their ups and downs. We just need to come together and manifest yet another political party which adopts qualities from both.

First on our agenda, this country is now Christian. Practice what religion you will, but be prepared to become subject to Christianity. One nation under God and built on the foundation of the religious crazies. :wacko:

[Guest]

DAAMN...I like that...but be prepared for the secular backlash on that.
Even though this country was founded on JudeoChristian traditions,
you are threatening (making them uncomfortatble) others with this.
...and we can't make people 'uncomfortable'??:lol:

[[CAKE]anonymity]

A news agency is supposed to be bias free and report on the facts

????

Perhaps, but they certainly don't provide anywhere near all of the facts,
and half of the crap you will hear everyday is exactly that. Craptacular! Woo!

I guess i didnt explain this clearly enough. They claim to be biased free but in actuallity are filled with them like you said, they sell the public on the fact that is bias free and just facts.

I dont really want this to be a political debate. I understand politics will play a large role in this debate bacuse of all the media conterversy always stems from a political debate.

why debate left and right anymore...it just gets everyone mad.

While people includeing myself do feel quite strongly about political debates i never get mad. I always know that the people on the forums are mature enough to respect the others opinion. I know PIX and I will disagree on many things politically, I also know that we can always settle our diffrences with frisbees or M4's. ^_^

I have a suggestion for the media, either remove all biases or make those biases completly visable (assumeing they do a good job at hideing them). But will this actually change anything? It might slightly in the policial feild, but will it remove our fears? There will still be reports about homocide and it will always shake the integrity of the people of that community. It will amplify fear of a similar fate to you or a loved one. So do we really need it? Someone who belives in the media will say that it is good to know the world and the issues around you. I dont watch the news, the only news i get is what i hear from the radio when my parents have it on and yet I feel I am very aware of world issues. I think that as a society we will have to deicide weather or not we want the news. I would radically change it. I would inform people of the negative issues in the world and get as many discussions going about how to prevent it. The news is missing out on the later and is incredibly important to the well being of our planet at its inhabitants.

[Guest]

You cannot remove the biases easily. Those biases are instilled before they reach the media.
Example: Dan Rather has always been a liberal...even before his journalistic climb to the top.
Now he has huge power at CBS and his slant has been documented numerous times. I honestly
think he doesn't even realize it. "THE DAN" as the ones who have crossed him at CBS call him,
has let his lifelong views slant his output of journalism. Journalists are NOT suppose to inject
personal feelings into their stories. Just the facts maam...is what they are suppose to tell.
THE DAN also has power to control what other journalists show. Many a reporter has been let
go from not seeing eye to eye with THE DAN and the upper floors of CBS. It happens all the time
for all the networks.

If you want to read a good book (and it's not very long) buy the best selling book by one time
big journalist Bernard Goldberg (formerly of the Washinton Beauru of CBS and 60 Minutes) called
Bias in the Media. Goldberg is a well known Democrat (so this isn't a conservative bash the liberals book).
He is STILL a Democrat...always will be he says, but he noticed the slant to the Left a number of years
ago which finally prompted him to write an OP ED piece for the Wall Street Journal telling the tale. He got MAJORLY
ostrisized by CBS and THE DAN and finally had to leave. He notes tons of examples of the slant and
pretty much cut his own career throat. Now, when I watch the news, I see much of this slant and how
easily it just comes out of their mouths...like it was something they were born to do.

If you don't think the media is flooded with anti-conservative, anti-men, anti-straight, anti-white slants...
read this book and check his examples given. It makes one pretty angry to see this propaganda machine
running full steam. This book also made me think that it's not a dirty sin to be a successful, straight, white male as
is painted many times.

[Wha?]

No matter how hard you try, it's impossible to get the whole story. There's just too much information for people to sift through. What ends up being shown is the product of a huge line of decisions on what gets to stay, starting from the first time the reporter jots down notes. Then the problem is exacerbated by corporate self-interest.

There is a way, however, to counter the spin. Get news from multiple sources of differing views.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

No one is denying the bias' nor the fact that it is easy to remove. Simply that it needs to be removed or changed somehow. Bias in any line of work is always difficult to remove because of the human element. I need ideas on how to get rid of bias in the media. I dont think anyone has disagreed that the media does contribute to peoples fears (if so speak up).

One thing i have noticed is people are more tolerant to homosexuality espically when more and more celebrities started to come out and more shows have come on to TV about it. So maybe media isnt as bad as I have made it out to be, but i really dont see any benefits to the news. One possible solution is to monopolize the media so that if they want as many rateings as possible they have to make it as non biased as possible. Just have to make sure the gov't cant influence.

[Guest]

EVERYONE is biased....you can't help it. It's natural. I don't see ANY way to filter
out biasness from the media. People would start to say the filterers are biased.

I believe in seeing unedited video footage of something without talkover. Seeing is believing.

[SoulEvan]

You could always write your own articles and say that's that. :blink:

[[CAKE]anonymity]

EVERYONE is biased....you can't help it. It's natural. I don't see ANY way to filter
out biasness from the media. People would start to say the filterers are biased.

I believe in seeing unedited video footage of something without talkover. Seeing is believing.

What you decide to show will be biased because you will no matter what leave things out.

I also dont like your human nature bit. We are human, therefore we can control what excatly is in our nature. Something being in our nature is just petty justification for something you dont want to alter. If its in our nature it can be out of our nature. All thats left is a decision.

[Wha?]

Human nature is an average behavioural trend, and yes, given the right conditions, nobody would have the negative aspects of it. However, those conditions do not exist universally, so it remains. Even if you believe yourself to be unbiased, the easiest way to tell is if you dislike or like anything. If you do, then you are biased. It's not something you can just will away.

[[CAKE]anonymity]

Any like or dislike will show through to the work in one form or another. Since it is true that you can not will aways emotion you can control them, and how they control you. A situation where they will show emotion are usually during large tradgedies (9-11 they all were emotionally shocked). Instead of looking at the situation rationally most of them will try to point the finger at someone. It could be premature and totally the wrong person or end up being the correct person based on a guess or mere hunch. Osama was the main suspect that was fingered and luckily turned out to be the actual person. His name was the first I heard and the only one I heard to blame 9-11 on. I did hear this name a few hours after the attack.

Gboy brough up cause and affect in my video game violence thread and I think it is very applicable here. The media showed the attack over and over again and appointed blame the first second they got. They could have looked at the causes of the 9-11 and help prevent it. I dont mean by passing an act. The problem is foreign, so change the way you handle foreign politics. I have always been one to try and stop a problem at its route rather then putting a band aid over a broken leg. Media maybe one of those problems, so I want to dig deep, rather then saying what we can't do. I want to hear some stuff that we can. You've heard my suggestions, I want some of yours.

Edit: 9-11 was an example, lets try not to debate it too much :thumb:

[Guest]

I don't think changing our foreign policy would help this. Islamic extremists have a basic fundamental tenet.
Infidels are to be killed...no questions. I don't think coming to the table for bargaining would help the US in
this case. They dispise our way of life and it is their life mission to do 'good' for their god by harming us any
way they can. Look at their philiosophy: Kill infidels in the name of Allah and you go to heaven with many rewards.
Who could argue with that?

So, our foreign policy on this should be to shoot first and ask Allah later. It's a matter of survival for us and them.
So why not eradicate the problem while we still can. Get them to Allah as soon as possible. Israel is ready to do
it RIGHT now, but the world puts pressure on the US to hold their chains.

Finger pointing is actually the hard part to do. You point the wrong finger at someone these days and you are 'leading a witchhunt'. But
the next day when that pointed out person does a crime, people say "WHY....WHY did you NOT tell us?? WHY did you not protect
us from this criminal??? Seems you can't win for losin.

And yes...the problem is foreign. We are TRYING to do something about it. We are tightening up our borders. We are making it harder
for troublemakers to enter our airports. We are keeping a finger on foreigners in this country. But here come the 'civil rights' debates.
We can't even regulate our OWN policy within our borders....much less across seas. Our freedoms make us our own prisoners.