Time to defend the Free Press

[tasty]

You say they are supposed to balance, but you are saying that they shouldn't have this time.  What aren't you getting about that?  What is the difference?

The difference is that I think those people got news coverage for their protest because what they were protesting for intersects with popular opinion. I know many members of more radical groups like socialists and anarchists that do not get news coverage for anything they do, including protests and running candidates for office both local and national. You are right, everyone does deserve to be heard. But newsmedia has a predelection for the more socially accepted points of view, and that is what gets me. These counter-protests were smaller than many of these radical groups, yet received far more press coverage on Saturday than any radical group could ever hope to.

You'd have to tell us what media you contacted about the protest.  Most scheduled protests come with press releases.  What was yours?

I used to work for Iowa PIRG (Public Interest Research Group) and we would sponsor protests all of the time, mostly relating to the two campaigns we were running that summer, a cleaner energy campaign and a gay rights campaign. My favorite action of the summer was when we booked Nollen Plaza (a big concrete plaza in the middle of Des Moines' downtown with fountains and street vendors and whatnot) and we put together a protest featuring about 75 environmental activists and the big draw of the day, a man who travelled the country with a 50 foot high moving inflatable oil derrick to protest the influence big oil had on the white house. We called all the local television stations and the Des Moines newspaper, the Register. We had a press release and our group that summer was fronted by a poli sci PhD from U of Virginia that was to run the public relations stuff. Two of the four major local stations showed up, and the Register (whose offices were two blocks away I might add!) did not. Although we were interviewed and footage was taken, it never made it on to the news. I can't put my finger on the circumstances why, but it was August in the summer of 2001 and I'm pretty sure it wasn't a big news day. So there's anecdotal evidence if you want it .

[|MP|Buccaneer]

The difference is that I think those people got news coverage for their protest because what they were protesting for intersects with popular opinion.

Well, if you are right, it's a case of doing the right thing for the wrong reason then, isn't it?  You can't fault them for doing the right thing, even when you don't like their reason.  You have to fault them for doing the wrong thing, then thorw this examples in their faces  

Otherwise, you are being just as bad, only wanting one side heard.  You don't get to equal by tipping the scale way back to one side, just because it got tipped to the other.  It only perpetuates the problem, doesn't it?  It's like revenge.  You killed my son, now I'll kill yours to get even, oh, now you'll kill my other son to get even again, and so on, and so on, and so on.  (yes, an over the top example, but it fits).

You say they are supposed to balance, but you are saying that they shouldn't have this time.  What aren't you getting about that?  What is the difference?

The difference is that I think those people got news coverage for their protest because what they were protesting for intersects with popular opinion. I know many members of more radical groups like socialists and anarchists that do not get news coverage for anything they do, including protests and running candidates for office both local and national. You are right, everyone does deserve to be heard. But newsmedia has a predelection for the more socially accepted points of view, and that is what gets me. These counter-protests were smaller than many of these radical groups, yet received far more press coverage on Saturday than any radical group could ever hope to.

To the lack of press coverage of that demonstration, I'd ask, did anyone bother to follow up and ask the media what happened, or why they didn't cover it?  I would have been interested in knowing.  

[cookie]

European sources are more worldly

nay, have you actually spent a good deal of time in europe? during my extended stay there, I read the papers... and they're aren't any ore worldly than the US. Many are actually less worldly and more critical based on the european perspective.


more to come later.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

nay, have you actually spent a good deal of time in europe? during my extended stay there, I read the papers... and they're aren't any ore worldly than the US. Many are actually less worldly and more critical based on the european perspective.

I didn't get into it too much, but I think that the reason for this is when Americans look for news from Europe (or other countries), we only go to the top shelf, and don't even see the crap (ok, except for the occasional peek at a page 3 girl).  

But yep, they have their slants too.  And their share of shitty journalism.  And some can still be censored.

[alaric]

Got to this thread a little bit late, didn't feel like reading ALL the back in forth between tasty and bucc so if this point has been covered, sorry.

When people talk about freedom and censorship of the press in America I only think of one thing. Corporations. They have the final say over everything, there are very few independant papers and tv stations left in this country and even those are influenced via advertising revenue. It's like the old saying: "With assitance comes dependance."

News had become big business in this country, it's about the bottom line now. Media won't report on stuff that will hurt their profits.

[|MP|Buccaneer]

News had become big business in this country, it's about the bottom line now. Media won't report on stuff that will hurt their profits.

Alaric, while profits are important to most, you are missing out on things like NPR and PBS.  And even though they accept corporate money, they don't let it effect their reporting.

Even with the private broadcasters, there are some that don't cater to the advertisers.  Ratings equal profits, for good and bad.  So, you have some news that's like the top 40 radio staions, giving you the same pop garbaged with no depth, and you have some that are the Howard Stern version of the news, making the public happy, but not bowing to anyone (right or wrong).  

So again, the quality and depth of the media is much related to what the public wants.  There will always be good and bad, and the percentages will swing from one end to the other with public opinoin.