Clarifying "The Media"

[Ohana]

I just saw another thread that accuses “the Media” for most of societies ills and or sin. I have to admit sometimes jumping on that bandwagon myself, especially when talking about sitcoms and other tv shows. We have to remember though that news programs, print media and other are also “The Media”. Some of those are quite good. Some may not be 100% in line with Catholic thought, but are sometimes in line with Christian thought. Many are trying to educate the viewer and do a good job of that, some of course are ridiculous.

Maybe what we can do is support those who seem to be doing a decent job.

For example, I like National Geographic channel, History channel not so much.

I like news on PBS and some on MSNBC, Fox, not so much. I realize that is a bias. Even on some of my favored networks, one has to discern which commentators are worth watching and which are not.

All I am saying is that we need to watch that we do not paint condemnation with too broad a brush. Diversity is not a bad thing.

 

[bobbyhillisabro]

I don’t like MSNBC whatsoever. They are anti-religion, pro-choice, pro-gay marraige, and its not a news channel, its an activist group. I actually like Fox the most out of the big three (Fox, CNN, MSNBC).

 

[CaptBell800]

A lot of people get angry at the media for promoting immorality, but I think it’s the other way around. Media is produced and becomes popular because there is an audience for it. If there is something immoral in the media, it is because there are large groups of people who want to watch it.
So, an immoral media stems from immorality in society. Dangerous media is a symptom of a greater problem, not a cause of it.

 

[SonSearcher]

This is an interesting thread.

I have always thought that certain news outlets tow whatever line they can sell.

Every media outlet has a bias.

Not a single one is created for the sole purpose of objective reporting. I don’t think that has ever existed.

But what does bother me is when anchors, and radio host, Limbaugh…Olberman…Beck… Soledad Obrien…they refer “the media” like they are above it and not a part of it.

I think sometimes the media we look to for reporting becomes a pseudo religion, and we plug into it and forget that every darn tootin’ human is flawed and sinful.

With that being said I prefer CNA, ZENIT, Catholic National Register (not the reporter) and EWTN because as long as I am Catholic I want my Catholic News to not be flawed.

Other than that these days I like the way FOX flavors the news.

 

[The_Reginator]

A lot of people get angry at the media for promoting immorality, but I think it’s the other way around. Media is produced and becomes popular because there is an audience for it. If there is something immoral in the media, it is because there are large groups of people who want to watch it.
So, an immoral media stems from immorality in society. Dangerous media is a symptom of a greater problem, not a cause of it.

I hear what you’re saying, but a major concern of mine (when it comes to drama and comedy shows) is that there is no longer any limit. They crossed the line ages ago and now we have generations growing up and learning their morals from TV shows. Yikes! Or even from music at times. (I was shocked back in the '90s to hear the lyrics that teens were listening to.)

 

[jennina67]

This is an interesting thread.

I have always thought that certain news outlets tow whatever line they can sell.

Every media outlet has a bias.

Not a single one is created for the sole purpose of objective reporting. I don’t think that has ever existed.

But what does bother me is when anchors, and radio host, Limbaugh…Olberman…Beck… Soledad Obrien…they refer “the media” like they are above it and not a part of it.

I think sometimes the media we look to for reporting becomes a pseudo religion, and we plug into it and forget that every darn tootin’ human is flawed and sinful.

With that being said I prefer CNA, ZENIT, Catholic National Register (not the reporter) and EWTN because as long as I am Catholic I want my Catholic News to not be flawed.

Other than that these days I like the way FOX flavors the news.

I love the quote by Sheen that did not show up here. Partly because of biased reporting, I had no real knowledge of the Roman Catholic Church before I was catechized and received on Sept.30th, 2013.
I read recently that the WH actually pays some news channels to stay away from certain stories. It does seem like they have some of them in their pockets.
When you see an event as it actually happened and then see the report on it, they are often quite different.
When most talk of the “media,” they mean the liberal leaningmedia. It is true that all news has an agenda now a days, with very little “straight” reporting. I try to look at both sides, but if a media outlet always reports pro-abortion, pro gay marriage, obviously glossing over facts and has been shown to alter stories (as has been proven recently,) then there is no trust there. Many of the so-called news shows offer very little actual news and more “human interest” stories. With all that is going on in this world today, all the different news agencies could be covering so many crucial stories.
Instead of “the media,” the right and middle leaning reporters should say, “the liberal media.” I must say though, that of all the outlets, Fox is the only one where I have seen liberals and conservatives at the same table discussing issues.**

 

[jennina67]

Thank you for that. I’m a member of “the media” and what I see people write related to “the media” here is often incorrect, especially when they profess to know how the behind-the-scenes story-gathering and story-angling is done when they’ve never been in a newsroom in their life. I do try to correct this as much as possible.
Now…Lifesite news, that’s another story…and I will jump on the bandwagon for that one because I see excerpts posted here a lot from there, and I note time after time that their media ethics and reporting are woefully lacking.

.

Lifesite news ran many stories about my niece Elisa, who is 32, pregnant and developmentally disabled. The state of Nevada was trying to force her to have an abortion. Because of their reporting, OBs, MDs, lawyers and prospective adoptive parents came forward. All the attention it got caused the state to back down and she is still carrying the child.
Everything that Lifesite news reported was true. I would be interested in receiving a private e-mail so that I could understand the comment about their ethics and reporting being lacking.

 

[edwest2]

I just saw another thread that accuses “the Media” for most of societies ills and or sin. I have to admit sometimes jumping on that bandwagon myself, especially when talking about sitcoms and other tv shows. We have to remember though that news programs, print media and other are also “The Media”. Some of those are quite good. Some may not be 100% in line with Catholic thought, but are sometimes in line with Christian thought. Many are trying to educate the viewer and do a good job of that, some of course are ridiculous.

Maybe what we can do is support those who seem to be doing a decent job.

For example, I like National Geographic channel, History channel not so much.

I like news on PBS and some on MSNBC, Fox, not so much. I realize that is a bias. Even on some of my favored networks, one has to discern which commentators are worth watching and which are not.

All I am saying is that we need to watch that we do not paint condemnation with too broad a brush. Diversity is not a bad thing.

Such a topic needs to be backed up with facts and research. This means asking the right questions:

1. Do you want to see more fornication, adultery, profanity and partial nudity on TV? What about lovable serial killers (Dexter) or rape scenes (Amerika -only a little nudity)? Or viagra ads?
2. Do you want to see all of the above (minus the viagra ads) in movies, along with buckets of blood, psychotic torturers/killers and other graphic - life means nothing - violence?
3. As someone who works in the media, part of my job is to monitor all media, including newspapers, magazines (including comic books), books, TV shows, and movies. I’m expected to know what’s going on.
4. The worst list in order of immoral content:

A) Movies.

B) TV - all types.

C) Books, not counting textbooks and most non-fiction.

D) Magazines - a good number contain objectionable content. A few comic books have recently added practicing homosexual characters.

E) Major newspapers with a few specialized exceptions. So-called “small town” newspapers are usually very good to excellent.

Specialty publications that cater to hobbyists, collectors, historians, crafters, and those who follow politics, the economy and computers and related devices, are generally quite good.

Of course, Christian publications, for example, while of varying quality, are high on the list of moral publications.

Things need to be defined. Vagueness does not inform anyone.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

A lot of people get angry at the media for promoting immorality, but I think it’s the other way around. Media is produced and becomes popular because there is an audience for it. If there is something immoral in the media, it is because there are large groups of people who want to watch it.
So, an immoral media stems from immorality in society. Dangerous media is a symptom of a greater problem, not a cause of it.

That is false. Take the movie industry.

forbes.com/sites/pauljankowski/2011/10/04/family-friendly-movies-make-big-get-hollywoods-attention/

It’s not just about money if some in the movie industry want to promote what they want to believe.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

This is an interesting thread.

I have always thought that certain news outlets tow whatever line they can sell.

Every media outlet has a bias.

Not a single one is created for the sole purpose of objective reporting. I don’t think that has ever existed.

But what does bother me is when anchors, and radio host, Limbaugh…Olberman…Beck… Soledad Obrien…they refer “the media” like they are above it and not a part of it.

I think sometimes the media we look to for reporting becomes a pseudo religion, and we plug into it and forget that every darn tootin’ human is flawed and sinful.

With that being said I prefer CNA, ZENIT, Catholic National Register (not the reporter) and EWTN because as long as I am Catholic I want my Catholic News to not be flawed.

Other than that these days I like the way FOX flavors the news.

The fact is the global news media is controlled by a handful of giant corporations. In the past, each media company could own only a certain number of TV and radio stations, magazines and newspapers. As we got into the 2000s, the rules were dropped, so only a handful of top media execs control the news. And I mean control. What’s the point of having the power to reach the masses if you can’t decide what the masses get told?

And that’s exactly what’s happening.

Ed

 

[edwest2]

Thank you for that. I’m a member of “the media” and what I see people write related to “the media” here is often incorrect, especially when they profess to know how the behind-the-scenes story-gathering and story-angling is done when they’ve never been in a newsroom in their life. I do try to correct this as much as possible.
Now…Lifesite news, that’s another story…and I will jump on the bandwagon for that one because I see excerpts posted here a lot from there, and I note time after time that their media ethics and reporting are woefully lacking.

.

With all due respect, have you ever been in a newsroom? I have. A good friend of mine is head of production for a daily newspaper. He showed me the ‘hub’ where stories followed each other in no particular order as they appeared throughout the day and night. He told me that some stories ran while others did not. He works with editors and photographers.

Do a little research, especially about larger newspapers, and you’ll find that a reporter can submit a story with all the facts only to have it ‘killed’ by an editor. Sometimes being told that he didn’t see what he saw. No, I’m not talking about top secret stuff, only about stories that might embarrass somebody ‘important’ that has ties to the owner(s) or something that someone told the editor that would cause financial harm to some big shot if the story got out. In the past, some companies/owners might threaten to pull their ads if the editor did not cooperate.

Ed

 

[Crescentinus]

Here in Manila, even the alternative media outlets can cause problems which involve gullible audiences.

 

[Ohana]

The fact is the global news media is controlled by a handful of giant corporations. In the past, each media company could own only a certain number of TV and radio stations, magazines and newspapers. As we got into the 2000s, the rules were dropped, so only a handful of top media execs control the news. And I mean control. What’s the point of having the power to reach the masses if you can’t decide what the masses get told?

And that’s exactly what’s happening.

Ed

It is scary to realize how much media centers are owned by one person. It used to be that people could not control both the radio station and print news in the same area, I think TV was added to that.

I agree with you Ed, about the content of most TV Shows. There are a few I watch - Bones, Person of Interest, but mostly I watch Home and Garden shows. WE no longer have young children, or even old children, in the house. I am completely in agreement with you on some of the advertising that occurs, even during times that children will be watching.

I do like Chris Matthews on MSNBC although I wish he was a bit less strident. He is a Catholic and I think he really tries to report accurately. Yes, he is more opinionated but since I agree with most of his opinions, it works. A case in point with MSNBC: The firestorm over the White House “threatening” Bob Woodward was thoroughly debunked by MSNBC publishing the content of the emails from the White House spokesman and Woodward. It was really a quite friendly exchange that was twisted into something quite ugly.

I really was not trying to be vague, only to start a discussion. I like the exchange that is going on here.

 

[Ohana]

I don’t like MSNBC whatsoever. They are anti-religion, pro-choice, pro-gay marraige, and its not a news channel, its an activist group. I actually like Fox the most out of the big three (Fox, CNN, MSNBC).

You see, that is how I feel about Fox! only more to the Right leaning, using religion to further economic goals, uncharitable and lacking in compassion. Well, I am biased also. Maybe both report part of the truth.

It is a good thing to view other than our favorites from time to time. It really does provide and opportunity to discernment. If we only focus on one point of view, well, that is all we have. I for one, object to being led around that way. Difficult as it is, I think we have a responsibility to gather information and think rather than being spoonfed by media of whatever ilk.

Just my opinion. I am speaking here of new and op ed information, not sitcoms etc. I leave those alone!

 

[jennina67]

A lot of people get angry at the media for promoting immorality, but I think it’s the other way around. Media is produced and becomes popular because there is an audience for it. If there is something immoral in the media, it is because there are large groups of people who want to watch it.
So, an immoral media stems from immorality in society. Dangerous media is a symptom of a greater problem, not a cause of it.

I do think you are right. As soon as God was taken out of the public domain because of the new interpretation of “separation of church and state,” things started quickly going downhill.

Supporting the media that do the best factual reporting and that do it without mud slinging and vitriol seems a good way to proceed. I have not owned a tv (by choice) for 14 years. Yes, there are good shows and good information, but even changing channels, I see things that offend me. I was shocked to find out that my mom’s best friend’s (93) favorite show was 2 1/2 men!!. And she is a life long practicing Roman Catholic!! We have been so inoculated as to accept this kind of garbage as normal.

Subscribing to magazines, newspapers, private channels, donating money to the media that have not sold out is important. Yes, we should be recycling, etc., but sales and advertisements are what keep these outlets going. Only the grace of God will keep them alive against foes such a Soros and others. We need to speak with our wallets and PRAY PRAY PRAY.

Without the “media” we would be totally uniformed. The “liberal” media speaks to me as to where I need to do more research to find out the real facts.