The Destruction Of The Mass Print Media Will Help Save Freedom In America

[glebealyth]

Being able to get unbiased and alternate opinions via the web instead of having to rely on print media sounds good. But what concerns me is what if the goverment tries to block content? I'm afraid of a situation like there is in China where the state blocks any content that's not goverment approved. What do you guys think?

I'm more worried that the content on the web is sometimes grossly biased and inaccurate - or just plain lies. People also start to read what they want to hear or what they want to be true instead of something that is checked by common newspaper standards.

 

There is certainly an evolution in news happening lately, but there are still agencies that are taking the time to verify their sources, so the effect of deliberate distortion is mitigated.

 

It may not turn out to be bad for "the masses" in the long run, but then it is still an ongoing process.

 

The current state of the internet, in terms of the accuracy and usefulness of its contents mirrors exactly the state in our personal relationships in physical rather than cyber space, and those with discernment and brains will survive. Those without will pass away, and so it should be. In the meantime, we may enjoy a period during which our lives are not entirely run by media barons and the political classes. This will be a short period, lasting as long as it takes the aforementioned to work out how to reassert control.

 

Until the priests, lawyers, media barons, politicians, economists, bankers, management consultants and other prostituting parasites have been disposed of (perhaps immediately following a very short time with their spines against brick) we shall have no permanent quality of life.

[RankStranger]

I trust print media and mainstream news outlets far more than I trust Joe Blogger. There are loads of nuts on the internet. I think we should have as many sources as possible. The "destruction" of print media would be counterproductive both in terms of freedom and information.

 

Well, I don't trust Joe Blogger, but that surely doesn't mean I have to trust the MSM, who is clearly bought and paid for by their corporate owners.

 

On a side note, I think that the internet is having quite another interesting effect, which I was thinking about today with a FB poll I've been having fun debating on. Millions of xians are for the first time being exposed to alternative points of view. That has to create waves of some sort. Guess hindsight will tell us what.

 

+1 on all that.

 

I personally don't think that individual bloggers are any MORE credible that major news sources, but they bring in a slew of perspectives and observations that just weren't readily available in years past. I take pretty much everything I read on the internet with a grain of salt- but there have been lots of times where individual bloggers or even people who post on Exchristian have made comments, observations, or rants that have led me to investigate in a new direction. I think there's a lot to be said for that- beats the hell out of the dozen or so sources of bland, standardized national news that used to be the norm.

 

 

 

 

Being able to get unbiased and alternate opinions via the web instead of having to rely on print media sounds good. But what concerns me is what if the goverment tries to block content? I'm afraid of a situation like there is in China where the state blocks any content that's not goverment approved. What do you guys think?

I'm more worried that the content on the web is sometimes grossly biased and inaccurate - or just plain lies. People also start to read what they want to hear or what they want to be true instead of something that is checked by common newspaper standards.

 

There is certainly an evolution in news happening lately, but there are still agencies that are taking the time to verify their sources, so the effect of deliberate distortion is mitigated.

 

It may not turn out to be bad for "the masses" in the long run, but then it is still an ongoing process.

 

The current state of the internet, in terms of the accuracy and usefulness of its contents mirrors exactly the state in our personal relationships in physical rather than cyber space, and those with discernment and brains will survive. Those without will pass away, and so it should be. In the meantime, we may enjoy a period during which our lives are not entirely run by media barons and the political classes. This will be a short period, lasting as long as it takes the aforementioned to work out how to reassert control.

 

That's a fun idea and all... but the people I know (back in Tennessee and here in Kansas) that are popping out 3-4 kids are NOT the intellectual cream of the crop. We humans are undergoing a genetic brain-drain... not that I care a whole lot. I don't expect to be around to see the long-term effects.

 

Until the priests, lawyers, media barons, politicians, economists, bankers, management consultants and other prostituting parasites have been disposed of (perhaps immediately following a very short time with their spines against brick) we shall have no permanent quality of life.

 

What? Doctors didn't make the list?

 

No offense, Shy. Well.. maybe a little.

[Vomit Comet]

In the old Walter Cronkite days, network news was a "loss leader." The networks didn't make any profit off of it; they viewed it as a public service.

 

Well, these big media conglomerates have taken over, and now we have infotainment. Crap, crap, and more crap. Soundbites, screaming demagogues, and all kinds of other bullshit. That's what the market gave us.

[Shyone]

 

What? Doctors didn't make the list?

 

No offense, Shy. Well.. maybe a little.

Oy vey

[Amethyst]

IMHO, blindly trusting anyone or anything is a bad idea. I don't trust the news media 100%, and neither do I trust bloggers 100%. Human beings are inherently biased, so the news is going to be biased as well, up to a point.

 

But I do think we should get our news from a variety of sources, in order to get a more complete picture of what's happening. I'm one of those that reads all the major U.S. news websites at least once a week. This means I read both CNN and Fox, in addition to the regular networks and my local paper. I also make it a point to read an international news site at least once a week to get a different perspective.

 

I think the more sources that are out there, the better. But I do agree that the days of printed newspapers are numbered.

[Neon Genesis]

 

Obviously, any news is only as accurate as the person reporting it. That said, there exists a conflict of interest with mainstream media, because mainstream media is owned and operated by big corporations. Companies that take out the full page ads or have big accounts aren't going to receive any negative press coverage, even if it's warranted. Joe Blogger doesn't have these big accounts he's afraid to lose, so he is free to post news stories that are critical of those big corporations being shielded by the mainstream media. If mainstream media tries to discredit Joe Blogger, we can hope that people recognize the fact that, with mainstream media, the Fox is guarding the hen house (pardon the pun).

If I'm understanding what Florduh is saying and please correct me if I'm wrong, I think that what he means is regardless of spin from either the bloggers or mainstream media, if we don't have professional journalists going out there on the field every day to find this information for the mainstream media to report on, where are the bloggers going to find the info to report on? It's not like bloggers don't have lives and other day jobs outside of blogging to go news headlines seeking.

[Shyone]

If I'm understanding what Florduh is saying and please correct me if I'm wrong, I think that what he means is regardless of spin from either the bloggers or mainstream media, if we don't have professional journalists going out there on the field every day to find this information for the mainstream media to report on, where are the bloggers going to find the info to report on? It's not like bloggers don't have lives and other day jobs outside of blogging to go news headlines seeking.

Bloggers are guys with computers. News organizations are multitasking organizations with lots of manpower.

 

Someone will fill the void. I think CNN already has. ABC would like to. Fox News is also trying to do the same so that the news they obtain looks like they want it to look. MSNBC is too. So who can you trust?

 

For me, there is less bias at CNN than most other news organizations that are online.

 

:lol:The above text is the opinion of the writer and does not reflect the opinion of Ex-Christian.net, the webmaster, or any other person posting in this forum.

[Neon Genesis]

But don't the people with computers get their info from the journalists who go out and find these stories and put them on the computer? Who's going to put the stories on the computer if there's no more professional journalism to make a career out of it, is what I'm asking.

[Shyone]

But don't the people with computers get their info from the journalists who go out and find these stories and put them on the computer? Who's going to put the stories on the computer if there's no more professional journalism to make a career out of it, is what I'm asking.

You are absolutely right. I'm saying that CNN is a news organization with at least the capacity of a large paper for collecting news and generating stories. Fox, ABC and MSNBC are not too far behind, but they tend to take other people's broadcasts and turn them into news much like the blogger.