Good evening my lovely people of mingle2, sorry I haven't post in a while I took my lady & my two teen sons on a vacation to unwind but your man is back. Okay lets get right into it, okay, America let me ask you this, when you watch your local news have you ever get frustrated that it seems that most news are focus on negativity? We had this discussion in my world politics class and it was a great talk. What I observe was that some of us came to the conclusion that most " Big Stories" are focus on murder, mass shootings, rape, robberies, and then last positive. I know negative news makes corporations money as well big endorsements by various sponsors. Here's an ideal, why don't people hold the media accountable for what they show us. I mean, boycott or even go after the sponsors to put a balance of news. We need the negative big stories but we also need a bone toss at us once in a while with something beneficial. One thing I like & respect about Tonight shows when they do there news sketches they tend to make jokes out of the serious news. Shows like " Saturday Night Live", " Conan O'Brien Show, " Jimmy Fallon Show" even "The View". So America, can the news we watch be changed by us that watch it? Is the power of people in mass numbers hold news networks accountable for a equal balance of news we receive? Or is it beaten a dead horse or nothing can be done at all? So let's talk , what do you think ?

All Replies Will Be Returned
Thank You All
EyeAmYourHost39

Unlike years ago when news programs were loss leaders and more of a public service, todays "news" shows are driven by profit first and public service last. If nobody watched them they wouldn't be on the air.

EyeAmYourHost39,


Well my take is I think is this. As TV viewers we are what keep TV in rotation. I believe we can request for equal balance of news. But first you would have to unionize and go after corporate sponsors first. The sponsors would feel the heat and comply quickly. I give you a example, " If you say well, if you don't give us what we want we would boycott the NFL super bowl". Even though ya'll sports fans would disagree but it would take something drastic as that for the sponsors to comply quickly. I would like to see that kind of balance in our news. yes talk about the horror but talk about the good too.

I think the difficulty, for me, with boycotts is that they often are going to hurt mostly the low level persons just trying to make a living.

I also think we get what we ask for, not in an absolute sense of course because we will never get all three hundred plus million americans to have the same tastes in entertainment, politics, or anything else.

I think we have negative because we watch negative and we watch negative because we are negative.

Think about it, back in the day with the Cleavers, or even The Huxtables or the college kids on different world, those shows brought their sponsors customers/viewers. so they stayed on the air. But when the reality shows and the rebranding of family standards as bigoted and unacceptable started catching notoriety, we started having less of the 'family value' shows or positive programming and it swung further and further negative.

I believe we can absolutely swing it from negative to positive, just like we did from positive to negative, by showing through viewership that its what we prefer to watch. But I think there are far too many who watch that box or the computer screen who are unhappy at heart and prefer the negative


either to make their lives feel better by comparison, or to reassure themselves that their negativity is normal.

No.
I get frustrated that the actual facts presented are few and far between and just brings up more questions and no way to find meaningful or satisfactory answers.


Huh?
To me that's like asking "why don't people hold the economy accountable for electronic stores focusing on selling computers and appliances rather than rainbows and unicorns?"


That seems kind of like ostracizing a parent for their 40 year old kid not acting in a socially responsible manner in another state.


Then why complain about it.
Otherwise you seem to be saying: "We need what you're giving us! But..uh...give us more stuff of what makes us feel good!"


So they take a news story that most likely doesn't have all the facts, and more than likely has been loaded with opinion, then they apply their bias to the information, to form it into a humorous opinion.

And you see that as a good thing, especially after what you were relating before.

Seems what you are ultimately saying is "news makes me feel bad! Me wanna feel good! Dance monkeys! News be about making me feel good! Make me feel bad, but then make me feel good! It's not about me thinking and knowing, but how I feel. Make with the laughy laughy!"


The news is as it is because of those that watch it.


Theoretically, as an abstract, yes, of course.


If what you're "really" asking is:
"Can people come together like in the superdome, work together, communicate together, form a manifesto so it immediately, accurately, and concisely communicates to 'the media' what they need to do, how they need to do it, and what will happen if they don't, and everyone agrees to enforce it equally, immediately, and fairly, and then 'the media' will respond as a single entity to address all the concerns, demands, expectations, and unanimously choose a specific time and date when they will flip a magic switch to adhere to all the demands and expectations?"

That's not going to happen.

I have several problems with your reasoning, or how you've expressed it.

In no particular order...

The idea that news should be "balanced" is an EXTREMELY bad one. The thing is, that REALITY isn't "balanced." Sometimes the news is JUST bad. Sometimes a politician is JUST WRONG.

Further, the whole idea of freedom of the press and freedom of speech goes down the drain, as soon as you decide to make judgment calls about reporting on a large-scale basis like this. The number one way that entire nation-states end up being self-propagandized, is because the bulk of the people get so excited by a given point of view, that they join actively to force all news sources to show them what they expect in advance that they want to see and hear.

I am at least as frustrated and infuriated by lousy reporting as anyone, including extremists, but perhaps my Historian-instructed point of view keeps me from jumping onto the side of anyone's simple solution arguments. Yes, we desperately need higher quality news, but the way to do it is NEVER going to be either by going the "general popularity" route, OR by the "Established News Monitor Authority" route.

Someone above pointed out early and VERY correctly, that news reporting has already been badly poisoned by changing it from a required part of every broadcaster's payment for access to the airwaves, to requiring that the news makes a profit. That's the first thing that should come into your mind whenever you find yourself complaining about a lack of attention to what YOU think the important stories are. It's also the most direct cause of any news source purposely taking on a particular bias: the owner selects a potentially profitable "demographic," and then caters to their prejudices. That knowledge SHOULD make the members of that demographic feel insulted and misused, but unfortunately, it seems to lead to too many people joyously declaring that they finally have a news source that "tells it like it is."

I think your right about the media pushing high velocity news verses someone living to be 110. The latter is a much more infrequent event, but it doesnt attract viewers. I understand that, but that's much differant than telling half a story or twist the facts or even worse not reporting the certain stories if it makes the opposition look good. This is why I will not watch any news casts on the liberal news channels. And everyone knows who they are. As far as getting news from the late night dweebs or " the view" , why not get your medical advise from Dr. Dre or your anti - drug activist could be wille Nelson .

Just a suggestion to consider: you are actually short-changing yourself this way. You are obviously capable of fending off propaganda, so it wouldn't magically harm you to include some of those "liberal" channels in your rotation.

I like to read a full spectrum of reports on important issues, precisely so that I know what each segment of the society is being told.

A quick way to do that is to start from the NEWSPRISM site, which is just a link-to-links site. It has an array of differently biased news sources, major ones, arranged according to their most common bias. You can click on each one in succession, and get each one's take on things.

I have found that even sites with a bias I distrust, will often have some element that bears further investigation to fill out the entire story.

thanks but no thanks, I think wasteing my time hoping that I'll hear a fair and balanced report on anything coming from the Liberal news networks. They are not real news reporters . News reports should be totally non- bias. Report the news. Period. The viewers will make up their own mind. There's a reason the media has the lowest viewership ever. No one trusts them.

RIGGED! Legalized racketry is all I see and all I have dealt with. I am not blind! mission impossible has begun and we all see how well that's going with all the resistance. Maybe it will get better in 8 years.

It's All Going To Pot
Roll Me Up And Smoke Me When I Die
-- Willie Nelson

MotownDown,

Hello my friend, well what you saying do carries method but I still think as the people we have power in mass numbers. maybe not change over night but in time with every movement takes time for change. I want to see more positive press as well as the big stories.

Ms Harmony,

Hey you, well you have method as well. I know the news been edited for tv & and sponsor woulhe d take more hit than us but don't we still have the voice of what we want to see on tv. This isn't just for news. Case in point, remember the whole Paula Dean scandal? remember she admitted on tv she used the N-word? the people was so pissed they pulled her cooking show off the air. I want to write to the networks and do a experiment. I want to write a letter to the to see how far voice will get the corporations listen>

Alleoops,


Like the video.....

IgorFrankenseen,


well your view carries weight, well As Americans we can change what we watch. its a long process , man power, maybe not in my lifetime but for those after me well....anything possible.

Yep. its always more about money than anything else. I dont think she should have been pulled, Im one who believes an offense should have to do with the job, and not just with whether consumers 'like' a person and their opinions, for it to impact their employment.

If I had an excellent heart surgeon, it really wouldn't matter if he cheated on his wife, or did other things I didnt agree with,

if his skills in a surgery room would save lives, he should be able to remain where is needed and is able to do good.


but we are past those times, and even non celebs have to be policed on their personal opinions in public and how the employers association with someone unlikable will impact their bottom line.

Workonit,


You know my friend, your view holds heavy weight. I don't know its it a lost cause? with a size of a M&M faith that it can be done.

Intergrityis1rst,


I see you are an advocate for the " MaryJane" ....lol