jump to last post 1-6 of 6 discussions (14 posts)

Why doesn't the media want to do its job anymore?

  1. 60
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    Questions from the press yesterday to President Obama were scorned by other media representatives because they didn't focus on guns. I know this is important to a lot of people but so is the fiscal cliff Benghazi and many other things. The agenda is clear we get it but there is other news.

    http://mediadecoder.blogs.nytimes.com/2 … criticism/

  2. 60
    whoisitposted 3 years ago

    No body is interested I guess very sad.

  3. 0
    Jonesy50posted 3 years ago

    The media, with the exception of Fox and some radio guys, has become a wholly-own subsidiary of the Democrat/Socialist Party. Yes, as far as I'm concerned, they're one in the same.

    Reporting the who, what, when, where, and how of a story has been replaced with idiot talking heads screaming at each other until a commercial break.

    1. 60
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I agree the profession has become nothing more than a champion of causes. If it were not for Woodward and Bernstein Watergate would never have been known, what happened to getting to the truth? For instance we now know the Obama administration did nothing but lie about Benghazi I have seen very little of this in the news. Sad I have to look for it instead of it being in my face.

      1. 0
        Jonesy50posted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Yeah, it's hard to believe 4 people can die, one an ambassador, and no one is to blame. A few people over at State fall on the sword and resign but not Hillary. She'll be the Dem candidate come 2016 and they don't want her record tarnished. Her being sick, fainting, and getting a concussion was all too convenient as far as I'm concerned.

        1. 60
          whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

          I believe this administration to be the most corrupt that I have ever seen and instead of the media being watchdogs they are willing accomplices.

      2. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        My husband went to broadcasting school a few years ago.
        The head instructor was always very talkative to him and told him one day that if you were in broadcasting you were expected to be liberal.
        He wasn't joking.

      3. Barefootfae profile image61
        Barefootfaeposted 3 years ago in reply to this

        Woodward and Bernstein were certainly examples of investigative journalism.
        The result of which is lot's of folks believe that light should ever only be turned on the Republican party.
        There is more than enough corruption in both parties but look at the firestorm when they tried to investigate the Clinton's.

  4. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    The media did not focus much on "Fast 'N Furious" either nor did they demand answers.  Like Benghazi they left it in the dust and ran to stories of "human emotion and suffering" such as Hurricane Sandy.  All this pleases Obama since he is not ask any difficult questions....Nixon should have had it so easy.  The Connecticut shootings has accomplished the original goal of "Fast 'N Furious" which was to outrage the American public that guns sold in America had fallen into the wrong hands and the media has done more than its.  In fact, a Mexican beauty queen was just killed with one of those guns lost in that project while she was being used as a human shield.  Where was the media reporting that story or questioning the original source of the guns?  Jonesy50 hit the nail on the head...the vast majority of the media is more than willing to deliver the socialist propaganda and grandize it as being the best alternative for America.  Rather than being a protector of the people, much of the media has moved to the other side of the aisle.  ~WB

    1. 60
      whoisitposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      I heard about the Mexican beauty queen but Ive heard more about Hillary Clinton's fake injury.

    2. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      Hello Wayne. Nice to chat with you again.

      Did you look for media coverage before making that statement? To claim there was little or none only suggests your regular sources for news are not keeping you informed about all the current events. For example, this event was covered by all the major outlets including CBS News, Dec. 18, 2012: “Fast and Furious gun found at Mexican crime scene” {1}
      Rather than condemn all of the media outlets for neglecting Fast and Furious, we should be examining the integrity of the sources we read. For your information, the LA Times lists 54 different articles and editorials going back to February 2011 on their Fast and Furious web page. {2} In addition, are you not aware that a House oversight committee held public hearings and demanded lots of answers from Justice Department officials?

      As for the media not demanding answers or pleasing the President, perhaps you missed the news covered nationally as well as in the June 24, 2012 item in the LA times: “Issa: No evidence White House covered up 'Fast and Furious' fallout.” {3} In the piece, Darrell Issa, Republican chairman of the House oversight committee, is reported as saying that he has no evidence the White House was involved in what could be a Justice Department "cover up.”
      Did you say you know the “original goal” of “fast and furious?” I know you would not claim to know the “original goal” of Fast and Furious unless you had verifiable proof. Please share your source with us. I have not seen your explanation for Fast and Furious in any published testimony or report. 
      I am holding on to a faint hope that Jonesy50 or you, for that matter, will supply a few examples of where the media was “willing to deliver the socialist propaganda and grandize [sic] it as being the best alternative for America.” No where within this thread has anyone furnished “the who, what, when, where, and how” to support any of their criticism of the media. All I read is myopic hyperbole including unsupported claims that Secretary Clinton’s concussion was a “fake injury.” Such babble reveals a mindset that condones wild and unjustified statements. This just serves to identify and marginalize these extremists on the political fringe. It does not require a Political Science degree to realize the successful future of this country will depend upon the moderates in both political parties.

      I am hoping this finds you well, Wayne.  Be sure to keep the faith and follow your bliss.
      {1} http://www.cbsnews.com/8301-34222_162-5 … ime-scene/
      {2} http://www.latimes.com/news/nationworld … orygallery
      {3} http://www.latimes.com/news/politics/la … 4823.story

  5. Wayne Brown profile image85
    Wayne Brownposted 3 years ago

    Good morning, Quill...I will be among the first to admit that I have given up on most media outlets in terms of hearing the facts.  Most simply regurgitate from a single source such as AP...they have no sweat in the game other than figuring out how it all fits on the page if it is a newspaper.  Today, there are good examples in the media.  This morning, the Speaker of the House is being suggested as bearing the blame of taking the nation over the fiscal cliff.  Never mind that the man has went back and forth and back and forth with Obama who is willing to give up very little yet demands to keep spending like a drunken sailor and wants an open checkbook from Congress to do so.  Have you seen the media putting any of that blame at Obama's door?  At this point, the conservative side of the aisle is being blamed for placing the country in debt through tax cuts and the Obama Administration is waiting for them to either give in on raising taxes or hold the line and be blamed for the aftermath at which time in either case, Obama steps in and hands the tax increase back to middle income wage earners and below.  I don't see the media taking the president to task on this issue but they seem more than willing to hang the outcome around the Speaker's neck.

    Far more media outlets will paint the Republicans as the bad guys here and give the president a pass leaving a goodly portion of the public to believe lthe same thing.  I don't call that a free or independent press....as it hawks the same message coming out of the White House in far too many instances.  Federal spending has increased by a factor of more than 3 times the revenue inflow since 2008.  Revenue has increased by over 40% but it pales in light of the outrageous spending which continues.  Does the media bring this to light....no, they focus on fanning the fires of class envy and warfare as desired by the president finding more and more ways to claim that the wealthy do not pay their fair share.  Our news of the week is dominated by the media's call for stricter gun control and a full debate of the issue yet where is the concern for mental health....almost totally overshadowed by the focus on gun control.  Here again, the media and those who will use it for their own purposes leave far too many of us believing that the terrible action taking place in Connecticut could be avoided by more gun control laws.

    When the Founding Fathers spoke of a "free press" they must have envisioned a media of sorts which owed little or nothing to anyone in terms of loyalty and allegiance except the people of the country. The belief that the truth and the facts would be all that was necessary to keep those with ill-intent at bay.  I no longer see any significant evidence that such concerns exist in the journalistic sense. ~ WB

    1. Quilligrapher profile image89
      Quilligrapherposted 3 years ago in reply to this

      G'day to you, Wayne. Thanks so much for your very detailed reply.

      I do not fully understand your opening remarks. Surely, you must be getting your news from somewhere! If not the major networks, then where? BBC? Conservative blogs? When you say you have "given up on most media outlets," do you mean you no longer fact check articles to establish their validity?

      I believe a critical thinker has the responsibility to distinguish between facts and opinions in media reports. Blaming the Speaker is an opinion and not a fact. I paid careful attention to the factual progress of "Plan B." Odd as it may seem not one source I read blamed the Speaker for taking the nation over the fiscal cliff. Before this morning, the news media seemed to be reporting with considerable praise the fact both sides were attempting to come closer together. Four facts stand out in the reporting today: 1) The President proposed a tax increase for those earning more than $250K, 2) The Speaker proposed Plan B with increases for those earning more than $1M, 3) The President closed the gap with an offer going up to $400K, and 4) The Speaker had to withdraw Plan B because he could not muster enough support for it from his own party.

      Both the Speaker and the President, for a second time, have shown a willingness to work toward a compromise. Both times, the Speaker had to retreat from a possible deal because the Republican Caucus in the House refused to follow his leadership. The Speaker is obviously not to blame. He is trying very hard to move toward common ground. His problem seems to be that a majority of rigid Republicans in the House will not yield to any kind of tax revenue compromise.

      The President has stated his aim to achieve a balanced budget and debt reduction through a middle-class-friendly approach of increased taxes on the super wealthy and a reduction of overall spending. I do not hear much in the way of broad blame directed toward the Republican Party at this time. I do not pay much attention to the extreme bluster found in these forums either because they do not generally represent the sentiments of the bulk of the American public. Today's problems lie in the future and not in the past. Looking back is not productive. The blame game will not produce future solutions. We should not be hearing complaints about giving up too much on one issue if a party can achieve a balance by gaining a little extra on another.   
      Once again, Wayne, I am baffled by your news sources. Nearly every discussion I have heard during the past week has focused heavily on changes in mental health protocols along with some gun sale restrictions as major components for improving this country's shameful record of mass killing. Take for an example the PBS special After Newtown: "The show addresses such issues as access to guns and the politics of gun laws; mental illness in young adults; the science of detecting violent impulses; and how communities react to unspeakable tragedy." {1} Once again, your perception of media reporting appears to be distorted perhaps by the very sources you frequent.

      Thank you again, Wayne, for sharing your thoughts. They are informative and enlightening.
      {1} http://www.pbs.org/wnet/after-newtown/

  6. 0
    Miriam Weissmannposted 3 years ago

    If you ask me it's generally because the media makes more money by not doing its job properly than it does if it does do its job properly. For the media, including the news media, they don't want to inform the general public but want money for the information they give the general public. It's all advertising and propaganda. It's nothing new. It's been going on for years. They're selling politics in the news. All they want is money, and let's face it, we're all at it. If you find out hubs about brand A makeup bring the best returns even though it contains lead and will slowly poison the women who wear it, you're going to write hubs praising it and selling it instead of doing what's in the best public interest. We're all money hungry.