Comments on: Mainstream media or lamescream media? http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16730 p2pnet.net - reader powered Tue, 24 Nov 2009 04:43:11 -0600 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.4 hourly 1 By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16730/comment-page-1#comment-695937 Reader's Write Fri, 15 Aug 2008 01:38:10 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16730#comment-695937 Don't be sorry, be glad. The self interest of those media companies are part of why they are where they are. For instance, think about the amount of times the Bush/Cheney outfit has leaked insider info to the news as anonymous sources. Think about the times you have heard about this or that from the mega-media corps in the news. Crap think how many times you have heard about the pro side of file sharing in lamescream. All of this goes right back to a strong (inspite of claims to the contrary) bias and self-interest leading what will be put in the news and what is deemed not newsworthy. It is often in conflict and we as the public find that the news comes in second. In the above mentions of article sources, you never hear that the news source was checked for validity. While there is supposed to be an office in the news sections that check this, it does not go deeper than seeing that notes and recordings match up with used statements enough so that it can be said to be the source. Not necessary an accurate representation for what the source was. I don't know about you, but when I've been the source for the few rare times that something I did or was involved with in my life was a news source, at no time did any (not once) item truly reflect the thought, actions, etc of what, why, how, when, or where, accurately. They were all slanted in some manner and made incorrect by that slant. It's just gotten so bad lately, you can't trust what you read to be remotely near the truth. When the corporations put out a blurb or fluff piece, chances are good it will be swallowed whole, as if it came out of the news bible as the only truth, and repeated word for word. The day of the investigative report is over. Used to be, news sources cared about exposing corruption and dirty dealings and would air that right out in public. You rarely hear of that anymore, not without them having some sort of hidden agenda they are pushing in the process. It's gotten so bad with layoffs, that they no longer do well at generating news content, but do excellently at parroting it. That's what the TV news anchors are today, parrots. If they can read and speak authoritatively at the same time, then that is what the news media seeks to spread the word. Talking heads is what they are, not news reporters, not investigators. Is it any wonder that the established media corps are going down the drain from readership hemorrhaging as those that in the past got their news from public news sources now go for somewhere else where they can get accurate, timely, news that is at the source, cutting out the middleman with other agendas beside the truth. Don’t be sorry, be glad.

The self interest of those media companies are part of why they are where they are. For instance, think about the amount of times the Bush/Cheney outfit has leaked insider info to the news as anonymous sources. Think about the times you have heard about this or that from the mega-media corps in the news. Crap think how many times you have heard about the pro side of file sharing in lamescream. All of this goes right back to a strong (inspite of claims to the contrary) bias and self-interest leading what will be put in the news and what is deemed not newsworthy. It is often in conflict and we as the public find that the news comes in second.

In the above mentions of article sources, you never hear that the news source was checked for validity. While there is supposed to be an office in the news sections that check this, it does not go deeper than seeing that notes and recordings match up with used statements enough so that it can be said to be the source. Not necessary an accurate representation for what the source was.

I don’t know about you, but when I’ve been the source for the few rare times that something I did or was involved with in my life was a news source, at no time did any (not once) item truly reflect the thought, actions, etc of what, why, how, when, or where, accurately. They were all slanted in some manner and made incorrect by that slant. It’s just gotten so bad lately, you can’t trust what you read to be remotely near the truth.

When the corporations put out a blurb or fluff piece, chances are good it will be swallowed whole, as if it came out of the news bible as the only truth, and repeated word for word.

The day of the investigative report is over. Used to be, news sources cared about exposing corruption and dirty dealings and would air that right out in public. You rarely hear of that anymore, not without them having some sort of hidden agenda they are pushing in the process.

It’s gotten so bad with layoffs, that they no longer do well at generating news content, but do excellently at parroting it. That’s what the TV news anchors are today, parrots. If they can read and speak authoritatively at the same time, then that is what the news media seeks to spread the word. Talking heads is what they are, not news reporters, not investigators.

Is it any wonder that the established media corps are going down the drain from readership hemorrhaging as those that in the past got their news from public news sources now go for somewhere else where they can get accurate, timely, news that is at the source, cutting out the middleman with other agendas beside the truth.

]]> By: Reader's Write http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16730/comment-page-1#comment-694950 Reader's Write Thu, 14 Aug 2008 18:52:09 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16730#comment-694950 The problem for the lamescream media is that fewer and fewer people get their news from them because now they have a choice and because as a sources of information they are unreliable. They became obsolete! Sorry! The problem for the lamescream media is that fewer and fewer people get their news from them because now they have a choice and because as a sources of information they are unreliable.

They became obsolete! Sorry!

]]> By: Canadian Mainstream Reporter http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16730/comment-page-1#comment-694813 Canadian Mainstream Reporter Thu, 14 Aug 2008 17:48:30 +0000 http://www.p2pnet.net/story/16730#comment-694813 Also see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/in_light_of_edwards_journos_fa.html There's a lof of coverage on this and since you mention Google, as I write this there are 4,469 articles listed under the one above ;) Best .... CMR Also see http://voices.washingtonpost.com/washingtonpostinvestigations/2008/08/in_light_of_edwards_journos_fa.html

There’s a lof of coverage on this and since you mention Google, as I write this there are 4,469 articles listed under the one above ;)

Best …. CMR

]]>