Quote:
Originally Posted by Oberon
I'll have to have a look at this. Sounds interesting.
I think part of the problem is what the media is allowed to say. I mean, reporters have to be careful what questions they ask certain people so as not to cause offense, but yes, I noted the careful absence of casualty figures for protesters in the tuition fees protests lately.
I would not be entirely surprised if such misleading reporting has been going on for years now, and only the people caught up in the event know any difference, but now that those people can go on the internet and say what they saw, the general public are able to piece together the picture for themselves without the news corporations piecing it together for them in their own particular way. Of course, it's not done in drastic ways like changing entire events, but subtly not mentioning things, or drawing more attention to one thing over another, it's easy to manipulate people through mass media, it always has been...
The agendas may be different, but the principle is the same.
|
Indeed, the 'impartiality bias' I mentioned is exactly what you said - they can only report what leaders say and what that possibly means, rarely is there any contradiction or refuting of those statements at the time of release - in order to not report mere opinion and stick to the 'facts' (as released from elected officials) the media perhaps are undone by their own standards, becoming unwitting mouthpieces of state information dissemination. The case of independent reporters and investigative journalism is not generally constrained by such unwritten standards as held by larger media organisations. The program mentions the type of association with which investigative/independent journalists are grouped with by the MOD. Hardly surprising given the nature of the MOD, but amusing nonetheless.
This also brings into focus, the current role of the 'new media' journalism/whistle-blowing (online and independent of nations or states) and the reaction it is likely to receive. I think many people will view the wikileaks with two minds: firstly, they don't like the idea of having their countries secrets aired in public, mostly due to the effect it might have upon their fellow countrymen serving abroad (one can, after all, support the troops without supporting the mission) and secondly, they don't like some of what they hear about their own governments actions.
It can only mean troubled times for independent media and also, indirectly perhaps, the internet - there's an article online recently about the UK getting isp's to ban all internet pornography, ostensibly to protect the children (this proposal even has an MP 'speaking as a mother...' as its originator), making access to such content an 'opt in' choice for internet customers.
http://www.bbc.co.uk/news/technology-12041063
The possibility is that such a system would be very easy to use in other ways too;
Quote:
|
Originally Posted by bbc article
Mr Davies also feared that any wide-scale attempt to police pornographic content would soon be expanded to include pirated pop songs, films and TV shows.
"If we take this step it will not take very long to end up with an internet that's a walled garden of sites the governments is happy for you to see," he said.
His comment was echoed by Jim Killock, chair of the Open Rights Group which campaigns on digital liberties issues.
"This is not about pornography, it is about generalised censorship through the back door," said Mr Killock.
"This is the wrong way to go," he said. "If the government controlled a web blacklist, you can bet that Wikileaks would be on it."
|
Your Goebbels quote has it exactly right though. In relation to the program, 24hour news is very easy to manipulate in this respect; something Rageh Omaar (bbc reporter, for those who don't know) speaks of, with some sheepishness, it must be said.
Vendor, It's available on youtube as well if you can't get the ITV site:
http://www.youtube.com/user/TheMediaCorruption#p/p