Is it possible that things have gone a liiittle out of wack when it comes to reporting the news in a way best serves public interest?

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=bPkToWBM8DI

Not that there is nothing interesting about that report, but come on.

Of course, the news is corrupt! They get paid tons in advertisement money!

Bizarre.

The "real" newspeople treat Jon Stewart with the utmost respect. Notice how they fall all over each other to get a chance to be interviewed by on his show. It seems to be taken for granted in the "real" media that your generation (the majority of our membership) relies on The Daily Show, more than any other program or publication, for information.

How can that be? There are so many hours of "real" news on TV, there are so many column-inches of "real" news in print. This show is on a channel named Comedy Central. Half of Jon Stewart's lines are scripted or ad-lib jokes. Virtually everything the other performers say are gags or at best sarcasm. How can people be getting more news from The Daily Show?

Well you just saw how. The information content of that sample from Fox was close to zero. "When you have a man who likes to rape women and carry a gun, it's not going to be good for your community." Gosh that is a profound statement, I would never have looked at it that way. And the content truly was zero for the half of the audience who wasn't listening because they were distracted by the t&a. Was that girl really bottomless? Didn't the FCC fine a network for doing something like that on the Superbowl a couple of years ago? I guess soft porn is naughty if it's presented as entertainment but if it's disguised as "news" it's okay.

This kind of "news" gets high ratings so advertisers love to sponsor it. But it doesn't inform.

Jon Stewart, on the other hand, conducts some very insightful interviews that leave me with my jaw hanging open. And even when he's being funny he's usually making a keen observation about what's going on.

Where did you get this bizarre notion that the news media should serve the public good??

Where did you get this bizarre notion that the news media should serve the public good??


Do you believe that the reason for granting freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights was purely for entertaining the masses or to serve the greater good by keeping an informed population?


The Virginia Declaration of Rights (1776) proclaimed that "the freedom of the press is one of the greatest bulwarks of liberty and can never be restrained but by despotic governments." Similarly, the Constitution of Massachusetts (1780) declared, "The liberty of the press is essential to the security of freedom in a state: it ought not, therefore, to be restrained in this commonwealth." source (http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Freedom_of_the_press#The_media_as_the_fourth_branc h_of_government)



The reason for this belief was so that large corporations could make massive amounts of money keeping the masses entertained?

Do you believe that the reason for granting freedom of the press in the Bill of Rights was purely for entertaining the masses or to serve the greater good by keeping an informed population?


Oooh.
You're referring specifically to the US.

Well, in any case, regardless of a supposed protected status, you must realize that as long as the source of information is publicly owned (as opposed to being a government agency..) then the goals and objectives of that organization is first and foremost to satisfy its investors, regardless of how that is done.

Oooh.
You're referring specifically to the US.

Well, in any case, regardless of a supposed protected status, you must realize that as long as the source of information is publicly owned (as opposed to being a government agency..) then the goals and objectives of that organization is first and foremost to satisfy its investors, regardless of how that is done.

My example was a U.S. broadcast about a U.S. news agency that was covering a story that happened in.....

you guessed it. The U.S:rolleyes:

I understand that these corporations serve their shareholders first and foremost. I just find it sad that this is the result.

It is interesting to note, however, that Jon Stewart is one of the better anchors out there and he reports for the "fake" news. I agree totally with fraggle rocker. His interviews are the best part of the daily show.

think about it. Drug companies (th egood ones) make tons of money off sick people like you and me. News station would NEVER say anything bad against their advertisers or they would suddenly stop recieving funds!

So that's why you never hear anything bad about anything that directly sponsers the site!