Legacy Media

You know how that word is applied to traditional publishers? I think this story illustrates how it can be applied to (the former?) mainstream media. I like how climate change is given as an example.

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/05/28/CNN-Source-No-One-Wants-to-Come-Work-Here

Climate change is a non-starter as a topic to attract high ratings. People are interested in things that affect them now, not issues that will only take effect in fifty or maybe a hundred years' time. By the way, May this year was as average a May as you'll get in the UK. May can be stunning with warm days and loads of sunshine; those May days are memorable and only occur once every decade or so. This May was cold and wet. The Met Office would probably say that the overall temperatures were average for the time of year because we had a short spell of hot days (three I think) with higher temperatures here than in Rio. However, the remaining twenty-five days were cool and rainy. Nothing that would suggest global warming.

In 1997 (the El Niño year), my mother complained bitterly about the unbearable heat, especially in the evenings. She said that she couldn't sleep and was uncomfortable most of the summer. She blamed it on global warming and said that we would be having hot summers from then on. The stats from the Met Office show no warming for the last seventeen years. If you asked my mother about global warming, she would say, "What's that about?"

The larger point, though, is that CNN is deciding what we should be interested in instead of reporting what's happening. Benghazi, Fast and Furious, the VA scandal (which has actually been going on for YEARS, it was one of Obama's campaign issues!), the IRS targeting of conservatives, the low-level race riots and attacks that are going on all over the country (recent one in Ft. Lauderdale, and even the local coverage there was dishonest, proof is on YouTube) ...all this either gets briefly mentioned, not mentioned at all, dishonestly mentioned, or quickly stuffed down the memory hole. The fact that so many people DON'T know about these issues or about other issues (examples: the Dept. of Agriculture advertising food stamps in Mexico, Ezekiel Emmanuel's Lancet article about healthcare for seniors), tells you more about MSM priorities.

Hence people are turning to sites like Infowars, Breitbart, Daily Caller, Mondoweiss, Takimag, Second City Cop and others for "fair and balanced" views.

http://dailycaller.com/2014/05/28/furious-veteran-montel-williams-unloads-on-obama-over-va-scandal/

Last two paragraph in this article:

<<  Finally, Williams noted the lack of interest in the scandal by most of the mainstream media. “I have people tweeting me saying, ‘How dare you even talk to Glenn Beck about this?” he explained. “‘Why would you talk to Glenn Beck about this?’”

“Well guess what, I put out my op-ed piece, Glenn Beck was the only person who picked it up,” Williams said angrily. “I couldn’t get traction in The New York Times, Washington Post. They don’t want to hear me, I guess.”  >>

Clearly the death panels at the VA aren't as interesting as climate change. As an aside, this is a preview of your Obamacare, for all you supporters of it.

Shelagh wrote:

Climate change is a non-starter as a topic to attract high ratings. People are interested in things that affect them now, not issues that will only take effect in fifty or maybe a hundred years' time. By the way, May this year was as average a May as you'll get in the UK. May can be stunning with warm days and loads of sunshine; those May days are memorable and only occur once every decade or so. This May was cold and wet. The Met Office would probably say that the overall temperatures were average for the time of year because we had a short spell of hot days (three I think) with higher temperatures here than in Rio. However, the remaining twenty-five days were cool and rainy. Nothing that would suggest global warming.

In 1997 (the El Niño year), my mother complained bitterly about the unbearable heat, especially in the evenings. She said that she couldn't sleep and was uncomfortable most of the summer. She blamed it on global warming and said that we would be having hot summers from then on. The stats from the Met Office show no warming for the last seventeen years. If you asked my mother about global warming, she would say, "What's that about?"

One can tell the weather in England for the next thousand years...Overcast, and wet...with three days of sun. Wait, that was also the weather for the past thousand years? It gives a clue why all the people in England are super white.
Maybe we should think about starting a tanning business in the UK? After all, the people are so white, you can see them in the dark.

Well, global warming is very selective, Domenic. It targets areas with settled climates that are affected by extreme weather: cyclones, hurricanes, torrential rain, heavy snowfalls, but doesn't affect areas with less severe weather changes. Somehow, the CO2 emissions have a way of raising global temperatures that have a tremendous impact in some areas of the world and little or no effect on the more temperate regions of the world. Clever stuff this global warming.

As for being white, the number of cases of skin cancer are down in the UK thanks to the public being made aware of the harmful damage strong sunlight can cause to people who live in cool climates. They actually got the message.

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10860492/Are-we-all-racist-now.html

Interesting comments, over 5,000 of them. I guess muzzling people by screaming racist isn't working so well anymore, to the point where even the awful Telegraph has to acknowledge it. Doubt the even worse BBC ever will, tho. Legacy media!

http://www.breitbart.com/Big-Journalism/2014/05/29/April-ratings-cnn-back-in-basement

Lol at the comments... "If you took CNN out of the airports, gyms and dr offices, there would be 44 viewers, 22 of which are watching from the control room."

"Do you think they're actually watching it?"

I haven't watched CNN in years. It's just a pale shadow of what it was once, which is sad. I don't watch TV cable news anymore. I haven't in years.

When Ted Turner ran it, it WAS great. I agree.

Shelagh wrote:

Well, global warming is very selective, Domenic. It targets areas with settled climates that are affected by extreme weather: cyclones, hurricanes, torrential rain, heavy snowfalls, but doesn't affect areas with less severe weather changes. Somehow, the CO2 emissions have a way of raising global temperatures that have a tremendous impact in some areas of the world and little or no effect on the more temperate regions of the world. Clever stuff this global warming.

As for being white, the number of cases of skin cancer are down in the UK thanks to the public being made aware of the harmful damage strong sunlight can cause to people who live in cool climates. They actually got the message.

I was in the State of Oregon for 6 months. they have overcast, and wet all the time. Because of the weather, women in their 40-50 range, look 20.
Sun is very bad for people.

LC wrote:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/immigration/10860492/Are-we-all-racist-now.html

Interesting comments, over 5,000 of them. I guess muzzling people by screaming racist isn't working so well anymore, to the point where even the awful Telegraph has to acknowledge it. Doubt the even worse BBC ever will, tho. Legacy media!

You say legacy media, but you accessed the Telegraph article online. There is a crossover between modern and old media. The article you linked to would not have been written pre-European elections.

The general public are using the new media to express their views and are finding their voice in a way that was previously unavailable to them (the same as modern-day self-publishing). Unfortunately, the politicians are not listening. I mentioned this on an earlier thread:

Shelagh wrote:

LC wrote:

<<  We told him that we were losing good members to Ukip over gay marriage which was when he did his mea culpa.   >>

Obviously he thinks people are leaving HIS party to go to UKIP because of his support for gay marriage! How are YOU interpreting this?

No, it's obvious that the chairman told the PM that party members were becoming disaffected because of the gay marriage bill. He takes the blame for insisting on doing something that the party members were dead against. It could have been any issue that he'd insisted upon. If he wants an overall majority in the next general election, he'll have to put his committed support of gay marriage aside and start listening to the electorate. He's not in office to pursue his own personal beliefs; he's there to represent the views of those who elected him into office.

David Cameron still isn't listening. The problem with pulling out of Europe is the financial risk/cost to the country. The electorate is willing to take the risk -- when it all turns out badly, they'll blame the government and vote them out. Whichever party takes the UK out of Europe will put the party between a rock and a hard place. John Major explains why here:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/politics/ukip/10864377/Sir-John-Major-Ukip-is-very-intolerant-and-will-not-last.html

People judge the validity of the media according to whether it supports their filtered viewpoint.  I remember when CNN was the first 24 hour news and they had to to find enough to fill all those hours.  Today there is a plethora of news channels of every political persuasion, so pick your poison to support your point of view; there's one for everyone.

I know that my sources for news are not always reliable so I look for information in lots of places.  Then I put it all together and arrive at a point of view that is always open to change with new information.

I do listen to the Diane Rehm show on National Public Radio because she brings in opposing points of view from respected experts that create quite a lively discussion.  There is another show I catch once in awhile that is a BBC international call-in show that also is quite lively with opposing and challenging opinions from ordinary and known experts throughout the world.

I never cease to find the diversity of viewpoints on the same issue, each supported by irrefutable evidence, interesting and certainly clarifying why the world is in chaos so much of the time.

Lately I have been thinking quite a bit about the countries of the world living in different time warps.
It reminds me of the very insightful Star Trek that used other planets and species to make their social comments. 

How do you communicate with a country where a family stones a pregnant woman to death on the steps of the courthouse for marrying the wrong man?  And it is a ritual approved by the ruling clerics?

How do other countries communicate with our country that executes criminals in a prison system that is barbaric, archaic and a profit making industrial complex that feeds on the people incarcerated?

Do we think we are the only country with the technology to use drones to pinpoint the murder of terrorists?   What happens when drones are in our backyard?  They probably are already.  I know Amazon wants to make deliveries using drones.

Not only do countries live in time warps, but so do individuals within a country.  The United States is as diverse as any collection of countries.  It's amazing that we gather around two political parties.  Of course, such a small percentage of the nation actually vote that the non-voters could be considered a third party. 

We talk about the "oligarchs" who control politics abroad; yet, we have our own oligarchs who wield the financial and political power in our own Congress through money and lobbyist activity.

No, picking a right wing or left wing series of commentators does not guarantee any better representation of actual news.  We immediately filter what we hear according to our personal set of beliefs.  Those beliefs are often formed by the very propaganda to which we are drawn and may have no validity at all.  Our entire reaction to any information may be filtered by our religion, heritage, culture, education and emotional health. 

The best we can do is train ourselves to reach out beyond those filters.  It requires constant vigilance.  Propaganda is thick all around, most of it generated by profiteering and power seeking.

  I especially like the"time warps" idea. We create them, I think, when we construct our realities, both individual and social.

I think that more and more people are seeing through the propaganda and hype, and as that continues, new answers will be found. Meantime, that vigilance is certainly helpful.

alj wrote:

   I especially like the"time warps" idea.  We create them, I think, when we construct our realities, both individual and social.

I think that more and more people are seeing through the propaganda and hype, and as that continues, new answers will be found.  Meantime, that vigilance is certainly helpful.

Were do you get the figures that more people are seeing through what you call, propaganda, and hype? and where, and how will new answers be found, and by who?
Surely you can share your source of information?

I thought you were trying to avoid me, Pappalardo.

Look up "socially constructed reality."

Or try Immanuel Kant for a look at how individuals create their own reality.

alj wrote:

I thought you were trying to avoid me, Pappalardo.

Look up "socially constructed reality."

Or try Immanuel Kant for a look at how individuals create their own reality.

You don't seem to be trying to avoid me, alj.
Look up "pure bullshit."

Or try God for a look at what makes people tick.

Quote :

People judge the validity of the media according to whether it supports their filtered viewpoint.

I agree, but that's not what my OP was about. Some viewpoints get more airtime than others. And when TV stations take it upon themselves to hammer home one viewpoint (e.g., climate change), they're no longer journalists, they're water-carriers for that viewpoint.

People are sick of it. I read in Politico that CNN's important 25-54 demographic just clocked in at under 100,000. Wow. Politico (left-wing water-carrier) tried spinning this, saying "Hey, look, Fox's ratings are down, too!") Who cares? What's the point? Drudge might as well be mainstream media, he gets over 11 billion views a year.

http://www.politico.com/blogs/media/2014/05/may-cable-news-ratings-spare-no-one-189393.html?hp=r13

Quote :

You say legacy media, but you accessed the Telegraph article online.

Yes, and? It's still around. My point was that it is now starting to discuss concerns that the British masses have, despite the Telegraph and BBC dismissing those masses as legacy citizens, and their concerns racist, in their zeal to be water-carriers for the one-worlders.

I have never seen a single issue that generates as much heat in a comments section as immigration. Our leaders can't continue to hit everyone on the head with hammers shouting, "Diversity! Multiculturalism! Enrichment!" anymore, when we're SEEING what millions of impoverished third-worlders are doing to crime rates, welfare burdens, depressed wages, balkanazation, etc. I believe this is by design.

BTW, if anyone thinks I'm a fan of Fox, you'd be wrong. It's a biased (e.g., Israel uber alles) station too, and not immune to gratuitous PC-speak. Look at this article on Arsenio's cancelled show. The last sentence is a hoot:

http://www.foxnews.com/entertainment/2014/05/31/arsenio-hall-show-cancelled-after-one-year/

"The cancellation of Hall's show returns the late-night talk show scene to almost uniformly white male hosts, with a few exceptions such as Tavis Smiley on PBS."

LOL, what is the POINT of that last sentence? Is Fox LAMENTING that people watch white male hosts more than black male hosts? Why did Fox conclude its piece that way instead of just acknowledging that people like the night shows that happen to be hosted by white males better than a show that happens to be hosted by a black male? Are they implying racism on the viewers' part? Are they saying this needs to be fixed? What are they saying?

Arsenio's show only lasted a few years when he was young and relevant! Why would his older, irrelevant self be brought back from nowhere with the expectation he'd be successful?

LC wrote:

Quote :

You say legacy media, but you accessed the Telegraph article online.

Yes, and? It's still around. My point was that it is now starting to discuss concerns that the British masses have, despite the Telegraph and BBC dismissing those masses as legacy citizens, and their concerns racist, in their zeal to be water-carriers for the one-worlders.

I have never seen a single issue that generates as much heat in a comments section as immigration. Our leaders can't continue to hit everyone on the head with hammers shouting, "Diversity! Multiculturalism! Enrichment!" anymore, when we're SEEING what millions of impoverished third-worlders are doing to crime rates, welfare burdens, depressed wages, balkanazation, etc. I believe this is by design.

I agree that the BBC is no longer unbiased and hasn't been for quite some time now. The Telegraph is right-wing. Immigration is about jobs. Intolerance to immigration correlates directly with unemployment figures: the higher the number of people unemployed, the greater the intolerance for immigrants.

This article written in 2007 gives stats about emigrants as well as immigrants:

http://www.telegraph.co.uk/news/uknews/1569400/Emigration-soars-as-Britons-desert-the-UK.html

As for Fox News, my impressions are based on comments by people who watch it.  I am fortunate not to have access to the Fox.  Making judgements about those who watch it may have something to do with how they conduct themselves.  Influence has a source. 

I agree with Shelage about immigration and jobs.  It is a hot topic where I live. 

Many asylum seekers are not seeking a safe haven from persecution, but are seeking a better way of life.  In the process, they become a burden to society.  Giving them jobs when there is much unemployment is a bitter pill to swallow.  Resentment is natural and directed toward all immigrants. 

Economics is and will remain a major player in how we view others as well as our own conduct.

At what point do we say that people born in one country should not seek a better life in another country? Is fear of immigrants taking over and changing the demographics based on historical evidence? American Indian Collectivism -- Past Myth, Present Reality:

http://perc.org/articles/american-indian-collectivism

The changing demographics of America:

http://www.smithsonianmag.com/40th-anniversary/the-changing-demographics-of-america-538284/?no-ist

One of the problems with understanding the indigenous people in the US is an assumption that thye all think and believe alike, that they have a shared culture and common outlook. That isn't really the case. Even within the two major groups, the hunting and agricultural tribes, there were differences, just as there were in the same groups in Old Europe. The agricultural groups had a more land-based culture, but the hunters, the Plains tribes were all basically nomadic. The article's statement re a few nomads isn't accurate in that the Plains tribes were quite numerous and were spread across most of the country. The agricultural groups were limited mostly to core coastal areas, Atlantic, Pacific, and Gulf. Some of the Southwestern groups were agricultural as well.

Even the agricultural groups, though, were forced onto reservations - see the Cherokee Trail of Tears. The Plains tribes had a harder time adjusting to reservation life - a major shift from hunting to planting lifestyles. But the facts were that all of the groups were forced to accept the conditions set by the European Americans whose agendas seemed to be to contain the natives and limit their ability to gain any kind of power, which at that time meant economic power, and insisting on holding the land in trust was a part of that. The tribes and bands did not have much choice.

When the settlers arrived in the New World, there were no laws or constitution to protect land rights. In the absence of a governing body, the newcomers staked their claim to the land. As more and more settlers arrived, they set up their own legal system and eventually drove the indigenous population off the land. Whatever excuses they used at the time, or whatever rationale they hide behind presently, this was land acquisition by stealth. Descendants of the settlers have produced a standard of living that they want to protect by limiting immigration. The USA would be a very different country if immigration had been stopped one hundred and fifty years ago.

"The United States Census of 1860 was the eighth Census conducted in the United States. It determined the population of the United States to be 31,443,321, an increase of 35.4 percent over the 23,191,875 persons enumerated during the 1850 Census. The total population included 3,953,761 slaves, representing 12.7% of the total population."