Never doubt that a small group of thoughtful committed citizens can change the world; indeed, it's the only thing that ever has. -- Margaret Mead
2006-08-28 16:47:58
·
answer #1
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
It depends on which news media you're referring to. Conservatives pretty much own the AM radio circuit airwaves but the liberals seem to have the market corner on the the 3 alphabet networks as well as CNN,CNBC, and MSNBC.Ann Coulter is extremely intelligent but I can see how some liberals would find her as abrasive as conservatives would find someone like Al Franken or Lou Dobbs. Newspapers are mixed bag depending on what you like to read.I never believe anything that I read in the LA Times for example...Yeah though, you're right. It'd be nice once in a while to hear what us "regular" folks think about current events more often.If I want to some news anchors opinion on something I'll ask him or her. I just don't want them trying to tell me how to think.State just the facts and let me make up my own mind.THis is why I WON"T miss people like Walter Cronckite or Dan Rather.Too much yap yap yap and finger pointing, too many generalizations about Republicans versus Democracts. Ann Coulter by the way is not a fair epresentation of how most conservatives think. She tends to be more on the fringes of it.
2006-08-28 16:35:26
·
answer #2
·
answered by Yahooanswerssux 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
Our society is more republic then a true democracy you might call it a represenative democracy. I think the answer is that the more polarized something is the more it will envoke a reaction from viewers. Notice that usually the far right and far left view points are discussed and middle of the road is hardly discussed, its just not that interesting. The media has both a good and bad effect on our culture. They are sometimes the general publics only watch dog with the government.
2006-08-28 16:08:32
·
answer #3
·
answered by kevin_21015 1
·
0⤊
0⤋
It's also a capitalist society ... freedom of private property. It's also a laissez-fair capitalist system, mostly.
The FCC does have rules on media aggregation, to prevent monopolies, but the result is oligopoly.
For contrast, read up on China's media, wholly state-owned, and they frequently lock up journalists for the smallest infraction of their vague guidelines... looking like a bunch of paranoid thugs, in the process.
Though it's more subtle here, if you really want to know ... the CIA has been interfering in film and TV for YEARS!
Also, you probably don't want to hear the ultimate truth. Under the circumstances, as an apathetic and lazy public ... we're largely getting what we ask for and deserve.
The sad result ... the least common denominator.
2006-08-28 16:10:29
·
answer #4
·
answered by postquantum 2
·
0⤊
0⤋
That's not always true, the NBC affiliate out here in NY interviewed me on the street about a homeless shelter was attempting to move across the street and was being blocked by homeowners.
I was not opposed to the shelter at all. They carried my comments on the 6 pm News that night.
There is also cable access and you can do your own show.
Finally there is the internet and you can reach the world here.
2006-08-28 16:12:42
·
answer #5
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
We live in a Republic, but have a democratic system.
That's part of the win/lose with 500 channels and "superstar" news names. Back when it was just ABC, CBS and NBC they had "journalistic integrity" and that meant "neutrality." Every story was told from a neutral standpoint, now we have right wing and some left wing television stations and you never know what your hearing.
When I go to my parents house, if they're watching Fox, I complain at them because my mother doesn't get involved in politics as a Jehovah's Witness, so I ask her not to watch Fox, because its right-wing news channel. She forgets though as she channel surf's and god love her, lands back on it. Gonna have to put a note on her chair or something, I really don't want her watching it and getting mixed ideas.
The day I quit watching my local news channel was when one of the News Anchors at my local station was reporting on an "event" being held in town, then after the story was told, he made the PERSONAL COMMENT, "and that makes me sick." I never watched that News again. I didn't watch it for the personal addendums, I watched it for the FACTS ONLY. If I wanted personal notes I would have read his blog. Man, I was burning, it was just so unprofessional, and he was the ANCHOR and the NEWSPRODUCER and his broadcast covered parts of 4 states.
I still don't watch, 6 years later.
2006-08-28 16:04:31
·
answer #6
·
answered by AdamKadmon 7
·
0⤊
0⤋
this country is not a democracy, its a republic. (maybe it used to be a democracy once upon a time, but when the majority of people vote for a president & political cronies can overturn those election results, it is NOT a democracy.
besides society has nothing to do with corporate media conglomerates.
2006-08-28 17:27:59
·
answer #7
·
answered by Anonymous
·
0⤊
0⤋
The major media are owned by a handful of companies. Those companies allocate budgets and resources, and influence the direction of news reporting. That's why it's next to impossible to easily find out what's really going on. You have to dig for information using a lot of different independent sources, including non-US media, for accurate reporting on what's happening to our country.
2006-08-28 16:26:08
·
answer #8
·
answered by davidepeden 5
·
0⤊
0⤋
The 'have-nots' don't buy advertising, and they go to work willingly for the 'haves'. The have-nots need to go on strike.
Read "The Greening of America" by Charles Reich
Then read "Unequal Protection" by Thom Hartmann
Then read "Armed Madhouse" by Greg Palast
The Revolution won't be televised.
2006-08-28 16:06:33
·
answer #9
·
answered by auntiegrav 6
·
0⤊
0⤋
If you are referring to the United States, it is not a democracy. IT IS A REPUBLIC...It iis absolutely shocking the number of people that think the USA is a demaocracy.
We are a capitalist republic..
2006-08-28 16:06:45
·
answer #10
·
answered by stephiestrobel 2
·
0⤊
0⤋