Jump to content
Sal's RuneScape Forum
Sign in to follow this  
Ethereal Den

New Media Vs Old Media

Recommended Posts

With the current state of media, particularly news media, people have began to pioneer more accurate information. Some examples are news blogs such as The Young Turks, or even youtube channels like Barely Political. Its all in an attempt to make the news more entertaining, more engaging, and more accurate. The debate is wether or not new media is succeeding in what its trying to do. Do you still read news print? Watch cable tv news? Do you think old media is more reliable than new media? What do you think the future of organizations like MSNBC or Faux News will be like? Your responses are greatly appreciated :rolleyes:

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They might have different names but I don't really think anyone of them have really changed. Besides the fact that nobody can say anything risque anymore without it being judged and criticized with half the country making a fuss. Those other smaller channels and things you said via youtube aren't really in the same category. I'm not sure if you are talking about the way we take in the news, in that case there will be people for the next 100 years at least who would probably buy newspapers rather than check out a website. It's not about old or new, it's about what is making money.

Edited by Fatalysm

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

There is a danger in Blogs to present a 1 sided opinion, and they are not under obligation to be completely factual. Sometimes they may present an argument without presenting the other half, or showing how reliable their sources are. Old media such as news tends to be more reliable (and especially bbc) are less opinionated but also offer a good well researched news.

Edited by Choccy

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites
There is a danger in Blogs to present a 1 sided opinion, and they are not under obligation to be completely factual. Sometimes they may present an argument without presenting the other half, or showing how reliable their sources are. Old media such as news tends to be more reliable (and especially bbc) are less opinionated but also offer a good well researched news.

With your logic, "news" broadcasters tend the most reliable. The BBC attempts to make a stance as neutral as possible (which I assume is not a popular with the politicians). However, the three other terrestrial broadcasters in the UK (ITV, Channel 4, Channel 5) do not follow suit. I feel that ITV is more sensationalized in comparison to the BBC, which in turn distorts the accuracy by emphasis (or lack of emphasis) on detail. Now statistically, 1/4 of the news broadcasters in the UK are reliable (assuming what I've said previously is 'true'), therefore rendering that news outlets 75% of the time actually tend to be less reliable. And I should point out (need I point out?) the reliability of Fox News.

 

Moving away from UK terrestrial broadcasts, possibly the most reliable news source is Al Jazeera. In general, their news aims to present what happened, as opposed to what people think about what happened. Al Jazeera's website still features blogs and I think that blogs are as important. Commentary of the time is a very important part of the news (Although, it should not be presented as the news) because it represents the opinions towards the issue as opposed to just "It happened". This then splits off blogs into a useful news source as opposed to a reliable one.

 

A blog can show you opposition, support or neutral stance on matters. This allows for the reader to see contributing factors to the current (and possible future) state of the issue. For example, you can understand 'why' there is opposition to the MMR vaccine by reading opinions of those who are opposed to it.

 

Another reason why 'unreliable' news outlets exist is because they tailor for their audience (I mentioned Fox News earlier on). The Guardian's general position is left-centrist, so I would be inclined to say that there are leftist people who read the Guardian for it's material because it is what they want to hear. In contrast, you have The Daily Mail, which is more-so a centre-right paper.

 

I don't think news should be made more entertaining. Why should it? It's news, it's about what's happening around you. If you want entertainment, watch an entertainment programme. Or better yet, be entertained in filling your interest in the world around you.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Most of the ITV presenters look like they've been attacked by a large pot of foundation every evening, if they didn't sit in front of a overly-fluorescent desk I would assume that they were doing the Weather. I only really rely on the BBC for the news, and personally find the Guardian the most engaging and neutral 'quality' newspaper, despite being slightly centre-left they give regular opinions from other political viewpoints. The only thing I rely on the tabloids for is a fun read and a half-decent Sports editor.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

All of the news channels get facts wrong because they're in such a rush. I watch Fox News just to laugh at it, but I don't seriously watch any news seriously.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I only listen to the CBC for my news. It's a taxpayer funded broadcast channel. I laughed when Fox News started attacking it, calling it "syrup sucking lefties". Plus the channel has deep roots in Canadian history ( modern history anyway).

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I'm not sure what you are trying to get at here Mr Harmony. News reporting is always subject to the writer's opinion, regardless of the medium it is being presented on. Whether its a hard copy paper news print or a web-based story the reliability of the facts contained within is based entirely on who is writing the segment.

 

I was a Journalism Major for three semesters before changing to English (my true passion) and can speak from experience when I say, there is more accuracy in the news media than the general public believes. No, i'm not claiming that it is all accurate and unbiased but much news is regarded as biased simply because someone else claims it as such. This has been a tactic that has been used since there has been a competitive news market. The best way to improve your business is to sour your opponent by claiming their news isn't as "accurate" or "neutral" as yours. The viewers or readers who believe these claims are then solidified in their belief that the news medium or organization they have chosen is 'right' and everyone else is wrong or inaccurate.

 

Another form of bias that EVERY (I'm sorry, but this is an absolute) new organization has is for which subject matter to report on. No matter how accurate or neutral the segment is, the fact that the writer chose to write on that particular story shows bias. It is unavoidable as no one person or organization for that matter can cover everything at all times.

 

As far as entertaining...I have noticed that throughout the last few years many news organizations have attempted to make their programming or periodicals more entertaining. Covering stories that are popular in a sort of bandwagon fashion was the first sign, but now news anchors and writers have begun to attempt jokes and satire in the midst of hard news. Usually it is harmless but there are times it becomes difficult to watch.

 

The future of these organizations you mentioned Mr Harmony are in their own hands, not in ours. They are businesses, just like nearly everything else in our society. They will have to provide a service that is popularly wanted or they will fade. Whatever the future holds for news media, companies like Fox and MSNBC will have to adapt to whatever the public is demanding or be pushed aside by what is feeding the masses.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The problem with media is the fact that it is privately owned. They are a business just like McDonald's and Nike and like them, their number one task is to make money. Money is an end and reporting news is a means. How do you make money? You increase your audience by writing stories that people want to read. That's why you're more likely to find a story about "Horrible atrocities committed by US troops" than a successful engagement which eliminated a weapons shipment. Fox News has its own target audience and so does CNN. They really don't give a crap about their content as long as it brings income.

 

So, what's the alternative? We all know the dangers of state press and why it's not a good idea.

 

So, the media debate will go on forever. It's best to use multiple news sources to avoid being fooled.

Edited by theking1322

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

I don't think I've ever seen a blog or YouTube channel that is neutral about the news or even claims to be, although I think that's a large part (not the whole) of the future of journalism. We now have sites like Twitter where people can talk about what happened before the news organizations can even get someone on the scene. And then there are the cases like the Iranian election riots, where basically all our information came from people uploading to YouTube.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

They stretch out and exaggerate a lot of the stories they show on Fox and such.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Although not always reliable, tabloids can get out information a lot faster than other news companies. A good example is the death of Michael Jackson. TMZ.com reported it quite early after he died, but they said they could have reported it even earlier. All other news companies (SkyNews, ABC, Fox, BBC...) refused to confirm it and reorted the story as "TMZ Reporting: Michael Jackson had died."

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

The only news channel I watch is BBC News - I usually watch it at breakfast, and then catch the end of it when I'm about to watch tv in the evening. I don't usually read papers, if my Dad gets one I will read the sport pages... so I can't report that. However I find 'new media' as in YouTube, Twitter etc useful for breaking news, it doesn't affect my daily routine of watching it.

Share this post


Link to post
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now
Sign in to follow this  

×

Important Information

By using this site, you agree to our Guidelines and Privacy Policy.