lesterb wrote:Another point that we should recognize is that news media are under a lot of pressure to give their readers what they want. I remember during the first Iraq war I flew to Ohio for a writers meeting. My seatmate was the CEO of a large news chain and I was a writer, so naturally we got talking. We actually discussed the kind of thing that this thread has mentioned. He told me that they have access to pictures of civilians being killed in the Middle East, etc. He openly told me that their coverage was one-sided. But he said that this was what the America public wanted. People didn't feel comfortable seeing that side of the story, so they didn't print much from that angle. It wasn't a deliberate effort to deceive, it was giving their customers what they wanted.
Now we could say that they had an obligation to give the whole story. I'd personally prefer that. But they are a business and in a business the customer is king.
I guess my point is that we are partly pointing the finger at the wrong party. The Washington Post knew that their news would sell papers. They erred in not being careful enough, but they did come back with the answers. What more can you expect?
Lester, I think there is some truth in what you say here. However here is the thing. If it was only about the audience than why would not some of the big news outlets play both sides of the fence, so to speak? Why would they not be going after both the left and the right wing market? They could have a news outlet for each side. I know in the past some of the big newspaper conglomerates have done this but I have not seen it done much in the past little while.
I think ideology might play a bigger factor in this than they would have us believe despite what your CEO friend might say to his seatmate on the plane. But I think there is also another factor involved that we may not have addressed yet and that is what I will call the influence or the establishment factor. And I think that factor helped to explain why it was that some networks and news people became so emotional and upset by Trump's win.
Media people have become very strong and very powerful. They market the commodity of influence and have in the past convinced the powers that be that they can help to deliver success to those that they like or maybe that like them. And so they use belittling tactics to sell their wares. They try to convince plebs like us that if we are not buying what they are saying that we are simply uneducated, ignorant and stupid. They are not at all above using the shame factor. And for the most part especially in the past 20 to 30 years it has worked very well. Especially when you add in the factor that the masses to a large extent have been brainwashed largely to think one way and one way only even by university professors. Try bucking the system in most modern day universities and you will discover what real bullying is all about. Really sad when you consider that these places claim to be for freedom of thought and expression but true I think none the less.
But in this election they were not able to deliver. And it scared the living day lights out of them. They saw their power and influence going up in smoke and with it their 7 and 8 digit salaries. Yes that is correct. Some of those high flying anchors make as much as 20 million a year or more.
The proof that something weird is happening is when you have a prominent Fox News anchor being courted by NBC, actually being convinced to cross over even though her contract was not up, you know their world is turning upside down. I mean only 10 years ago someone that worked for Fox would not of had a chance at one of the other big networks.
In summary my point is that they have become influence peddlers and that it has become a bigger factor for them than any kind of truth in news telling. But I could be wrong.