 |
|
|
| View previous topic :: View next topic |
| Author |
Message |
Woods Of Ypres
Joined: 27 May 2003
Location: Yugoslavia
|
| Post subject: |  |
|
I am so sick if this view that assumes white lives must be worth more based on news coverage allocation. its load of leftist CRAP.
what makes world news is determined by commonality of the event. unfortunately in middle-eastern, African countries etc, bombings and killings become less newsworthy due to their frequency. They become 'normal' rather than 'news'
What happened in Paris is something on a scale never seen, hence the coverage. Yet libtards insist that we feel guilty about something  |
|
|
|
 |
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| David wrote: | Good article, Tannin, thanks.
I'll repost what I wrote on Facebook:
The conclusion is largely accurate, but what will lead anyone to change their disposition? Most people don't just not care about Kenyans, they don't care about not caring. I think to some extent media organisations have to be the ones to step up to the plate, and that's where government regulation comes in. Tell editors that they are required to provide roughly equal treatment of international events (obviously local events will still take priority though), and get the ACMA on the case to enforce it.
Why do we need to do this? Because these double standards continue the dehumanisation of foreigners, and in a multicultural society, empathy for the 'other' is an essential part of maintaining social cohesion. It would also increase public knowledge of geography and international affairs, an essential skill in an increasingly globalised world. |
While we're at it David, don't forget to legislate that news organisations should cover inequality equally with stock prices, and union interests equally with those of business, and women's issues the same as men's issues, and developing world economics equally with developed countries. Oh, and Russian views about the Ukraine equally with European. By the way, the Salafist view of history is underrepresented. We should get ACMA onto that, as well.
.......Or we could accept that, in a free society, I'm allowed to read what I want to read, and that my taxes are not paid for you to coerce the media into the service of your social engineering project of the week.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
David 
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Before you get too carried away, let's turn your slippery slope on its head. Would you argue that we should get rid of the ACMA altogether because it impinges on free speech? Or do you concede that a government body imposing content restrictions on commercial news outlets is actually a desirable thing within limitations? If not, you might be in for a shock, because at present its scope includes everything from what language can be used on commercial radio to what percentage of Australian content should be included on TV channels. My suggestion is a little radical, perhaps, but still something that could easily be accommodated within the current system without transforming Australia into a communist dystopia. All I'm asking is that newspapers actually live up to their mission statements and inform the public. If the free market isn't getting the job done, then I don't see why government shouldn't take a crack at it.
| Woods Of Ypres wrote: | I am so sick if this view that assumes white lives must be worth more based on news coverage allocation. its load of leftist CRAP.
what makes world news is determined by commonality of the event. unfortunately in middle-eastern, African countries etc, bombings and killings become less newsworthy due to their frequency. They become 'normal' rather than 'news'
What happened in Paris is something on a scale never seen, hence the coverage. Yet libtards insist that we feel guilty about something |
Nonsense. If this were the case, then, as I wrote before, a terrorist attack in Kiribati or Zambia should be as big news here as one in the UK or US. And a mass shooting in America, which is practically a monthly event, should be as newsworthy as one in Kazakhstan. How much do you want to bet that that would be the case?
I don't think you can reasonably deny that certain parts of the world are given much higher priority in our media than others. The only thing left to do is to discuss why it is so and whether it's something that can or should be changed.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
^ I don't actually know what ACMA is, though I presume it is the media regulator. As such, I'd be pretty confident its role is to enforce community standards, not to manufacture them in the service of this or that political agenda. All of the things that I suggested to complement yours have some theoretical rationale (a debatable one , but a rationale nonetheless) of advancing human social or intercultural understanding, etc. They're just not the job of a media regulator. I still think that what you are proposing is censorship in the service of your agenda.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
think positive
Side By Side
Joined: 30 Jun 2005
Location: somewhere
|
| Post subject: | |
|
We really need a like button
_________________
You cant fix stupid, turns out you cant quarantine it either! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin 
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Mugwump wrote: | | David wrote: | Good article, Tannin, thanks.
I'll repost what I wrote on Facebook:
The conclusion is largely accurate, but what will lead anyone to change their disposition? Most people don't just not care about Kenyans, they don't care about not caring. I think to some extent media organisations have to be the ones to step up to the plate, and that's where government regulation comes in. Tell editors that they are required to provide roughly equal treatment of international events (obviously local events will still take priority though), and get the ACMA on the case to enforce it.
Why do we need to do this? Because these double standards continue the dehumanisation of foreigners, and in a multicultural society, empathy for the 'other' is an essential part of maintaining social cohesion. It would also increase public knowledge of geography and international affairs, an essential skill in an increasingly globalised world. |
While we're at it David, don't forget to legislate that news organisations should cover inequality equally with stock prices, and union interests equally with those of business, and women's issues the same as men's issues, and developing world economics equally with developed countries. Oh, and Russian views about the Ukraine equally with European. By the way, the Salafist view of history is underrepresented. We should get ACMA onto that, as well.
.......Or we could accept that, in a free society, I'm allowed to read what I want to read, and that my taxes are not paid for you to coerce the media into the service of your social engineering project of the week. |
^ Logic fail.
So it's a disaster for David to control the news for altruistic social good, but perfectly OK for the very, very rich to control the news for their own private gain. I like and applaud your argument insofar as it makes David's naive suggestion look like the foolishness it is. However, your counter proposal is, if anything, even worse.
No single small group should be allowed to control the news. Not Murdoch and his evil colleagues, and certainly not David's Stalinist board of control. And yet, short of Stalinist news regulation, how is it possible to have anything other than the crypto-Fascist arrangement we have now?
I don't have a comprehensive answer, but there are things we can do which will help. One is to wind back the extreme disparity in wealth and power which is what gives Murdoch (and others like him) the ability to control communications and, by controlling communications, maintain and yet further increase his obscene wealth and power. A second is to do whatever it takes to maintain and increase the independence of public news sources (like, for example, the ABC) and encourage a multiplicity of them to aid diversity. A third is to remember something which we knew perfectly well in the 20th Century but have now completely forgotten: that broad and general education is a vital public good.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Mugwump, the ACMA is a regulatory body with the notional purpose of ensuring fairness and decency in broadcasting. And it works perfectly well until someone wealthy and powerful wants to, for example, take large and secret corrupt payments to pervert the news for commercial gain (google "cash for comment"), or incite racial hatred and violence by spreading known untruths, or spread deliberate lies* about climate change as a matter of station policy (found guilty over and over, no substantive penalty). Then, nothing happens. In other words, it works perfectly well to enforce the (deliberately very liberal) rules of fairness and decency in broadcasting just so long as all the broadcasters abide by those rules. It's like having a law against murder which is strictly enforced except when you kill someone.
* Lies. Real lies. I'm not talking matters of opinion here, I'm talking actual deliberate lies; stuff that you know is untrue, stuff that, if you said it in court, would see you serve a lengthy term for perjury and/or contempt.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
David
I dare you to try
Joined: 27 Jul 2003
Location: Andromeda
|
| Post subject: | |
|
I don't think there's anything wrong with a government laying out guidelines as to how a news organisation should be; a list of principles that still allows for a great deal of editorial independence whilst advocating for accuracy, balance, public education, ethical journalism and fair reporting. Make it a voluntary code that media organisations can sign up to, and attach government subsidies to it as a motivational tool.
Too interventionist? Too statist? Perhaps, but if you want to dismiss it out of hand then you may as well sit back and enjoy the current media we have, because without regulation of some kind there will be nothing to stop the misinformation, political bias and irrelevance that dominate our commercial media organisations. The only possible result of the perpetuation of the status quo is degradation of public knowledge and society as a whole. Let's at least discuss ways of addressing that rather than just accepting it as the wallpaper.
_________________
All watched over by machines of loving grace |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Too what? |
|
|
|
|
Mugwump
Joined: 28 Jul 2007
Location: Between London and Melbourne
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Mugwump, the ACMA is a regulatory body with the notional purpose of ensuring fairness and decency in broadcasting. And it works perfectly well until someone wealthy and powerful wants to, for example, take large and secret corrupt payments to pervert the news for commercial gain (google "cash for comment"), or incite racial hatred and violence by spreading known untruths, or spread deliberate lies* about climate change as a matter of station policy (found guilty over and over, no substantive penalty). Then, nothing happens. In other words, it works perfectly well to enforce the (deliberately very liberal) rules of fairness and decency in broadcasting just so long as all the broadcasters abide by those rules. It's like having a law against murder which is strictly enforced except when you kill someone.
* Lies. Real lies. I'm not talking matters of opinion here, I'm talking actual deliberate lies; stuff that you know is untrue, stuff that, if you said it in court, would see you serve a lengthy term for perjury and/or contempt. |
I have no problem with diversity of media ownership laws, though I am not sure they make too much sense in an internet age. I do know that in Britain we have two right-ish serious newpapers, and two leftish serious papers. The tabloid press are 3/4 rightish, but there is a leftward paper as well. Then there is the daily star, which doesn't care who she votes for as long as she has big tits. There is no shortage of choice, whatever your political taste.
Australia seems to have the Australian and the Age - the former noticeably Rightist, and the latter dedicated to sexuality and modern etiquette issues of interest to the metropolitan left.
I do accept that there is an important place for those lovely institutions, the BBC and the ABC, which perform a very valuable service. Especially the BBC, which is superb. They help to provide a platform of relative impartiality which helps to judge the commercial press and keep it honest.
_________________
Two more flags before I die! |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie 
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Media sources target different markets. Is it the role of a media source to provide information that some higher good things people should be aware of, like a bombing in beirut or a murder in fucknowsistan, or report on stuff which is considered in the public interest AND interesting to the market they're trying to attract?
(Government funded media sources are exempt from the audience attraction bit obviously, they don't have advertising or care about ratings)
If it's the latter of the two, as I think it is, does the fault lie with the media or the population/market they're pitching too?
If people want news on Beirut or whatever they can watch SBS or access inumerous online sources to fill their desire for info, and they do. if there was enough interest, so would the commercial media.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Tannin
Can't remember
Joined: 06 Aug 2006
Location: Huon Valley Tasmania
|
| Post subject: | |
|
Stui, all that might be true if commercial media worked that way. They don't. Never have. Never will. Successful commercial media organisations - and there is no other kind, not in the longer term - care only about the entities which pay them. Only. And the organisations that pay don't give a bugger what you and I might want to watch or not watch, they only care about selling stuff. Only.
There is indeed a connection between audience numbers and media company income, but it is a fairly weak one. Advertisers couldn't care less how many people watch a show, they only care how many buyers watch, and that is a very different thing.
_________________
�Let's eat Grandma.� Commas save lives! |
|
|
|
|
HAL
Please don't shout at me - I can't help it.
Joined: 17 Mar 2003
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Are you other kind not in the term - care [he or she]only[he or she] about the entities which pay them? |
|
|
|
|
stui magpie
Prepare for the worst, hope for the best.
Joined: 03 May 2005
Location: In flagrante delicto
|
| Post subject: | |
|
| Tannin wrote: | Stui, all that might be true if commercial media worked that way. They don't. Never have. Never will. Successful commercial media organisations - and there is no other kind, not in the longer term - care only about the entities which pay them. Only. And the organisations that pay don't give a bugger what you and I might want to watch or not watch, they only care about selling stuff. Only.
There is indeed a connection between audience numbers and media company income, but it is a fairly weak one. Advertisers couldn't care less how many people watch a show, they only care how many buyers watch, and that is a very different thing. |
I don't think we're that far apart. I referred to attracting those they want to attract, you referred to attracting buyers to the advertising. The two aren't mutually exclusive IMO.
The elephant in the room is social media. Many young people now don't view traditional media, unless a link pops up in their social media news feed that interests them.
if Davids, as you put it Naive suggestion, was actually implemented, I seriously doubt it would have the result he desires.
_________________
Every dead body on Mt Everest was once a highly motivated person, so maybe just calm the **** down. |
|
|
|
|
Skids 
Quitting drinking will be one of the best choices you make in your life.
Joined: 11 Sep 2007
Location: Joined 3/6/02 . Member #175
|
| Post subject: Re: Our hierarchy of interest | |
|
| David wrote: | A lot of us have been emotionally affected by the events in Paris yesterday. The senselessness of it all, the nightmarish details of how the massacres were carried out, the heartbreaking witness accounts, the knowledge that it could have been any of us ... it's only human to be shaken by it and to want to express solidarity with the people of France.
And yet, we know that these events do not only occur in Europe and North America. A couple of days ago, 43 people were killed in a similar attack in Lebanon. 50-80 were killed in an attack on a Shia mosque in Bangladesh less than a month ago. These attacks did not get front page treatment in the newspapers, and weren't given rolling live coverage on TV. The Sydney Opera House was not lit up in the colours of Lebanon or Bangladesh. Those of us who heard about these attacks would not have spent more than 5 minutes thinking about them, and I dare say the majority of us didn't even hear about them at all.
Why is this? Do we simply care more about the lives of French people, and if so, why? Is it because they look like us? Is it that they share a similar culture with us? Or is it about media coverage? Would we have been affected equally by the Lebanese or Bangladeshi bombings if they had received the same coverage, with the same live updates, personal stories and faces of victims? Or are we incapable of devoting such empathy to strange, 'foreign' people? Is there something quite fundamental in human nature causing this?
That this phenomenon - this hierarchy of interest - exists is undeniable. Knowing that, is there anything we can do about it? And would our world be a better place if we could? |
It's interesting. There's been over 620 killed and 100's more injured in dozens of terrorist attacks by muslims since the Paris attacks just weeks ago, and, you're right, we don't hear much about them at all.
Maybe they don't want us to become alarmists about the rampant terror that Islam continues to deliver across the globe.
_________________
Don't count the days, make the days count. |
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
You cannot post new topics in this forum
You cannot reply to topics in this forum
You cannot edit your posts in this forum
You cannot delete your posts in this forum
You cannot vote in polls in this forum
You cannot attach files in this forum
You cannot download files in this forum
|
|
The Rules
FAQ
Usergroups
Calendar
Search
Log in
Register
