what do you think of not for profit news?

Question

can we come up with with a model that will replace individuals/corporations profiting on the news of the day.

It seems to me there is something way off, that people build , promote and foreward careers and television stations make millions on the school shootings like the one in Montreal yesterday, wars and mass deaths during natural disasters. What do you think of taking news out of the thier hands? How could we do this?

it is a pretence that the news media give a damn or have any sincere concern for life and upgrading the quality of life on our planet, it is blatantly obvious that the worse the circumstances are, the gorier the story the better and more profitable it is for news media.

Answer 1

In our world, at this time and pretty much all others, in order to provide for yourself you do have to work. The problem that this poses for journalism is not an easy one to solve. In order to be able to actually devote the time the news deserves a person is going to have to make money from reporting, or editing, or owning the printing presses. So you cannot count on people reporting the news out of purely altruistic motives.

The internet and especially blogs have been hailed as a way to take news back from large media establishments and return it to the everyday man an woman. However, this has the same problems that large corporations or volunteer news has. A person must either support themselves through adds or subscriptions which means they must draw in readers, or have a different job, which means it would be hard for a person to accurately cover the news. Plus, when it comes to the internet pitching your coverage to a small number of people who think like you do becomes easier leading to stilted coverage, misinterpretations or outright fabrications to help further one view point.

The large conglomerate media company has one goal, to make money. It's not the most lauded goal and they will claim to hope for good coverage and pulitzer prizes but ratings and money are the true goal. However, this actually gives a large control over media. If a reporter or a company get a bad name for misreporting they will pay the consequences in a decline of ratings, which means a loss of add revenue, or the loss of a job, just ask Dan Rather or any of the reporters fired for plaigarism or fabricating sources. A blogger who relies on a much smaller subsection of the public for his or her support does not have to so sensitive the truth and can feel free to use even more shady practices with reporting.

We get upset, and rightfully so, when the media abuses our trust, but the fact that these stories are exposed shows that it at least sort of functions. Reporters are blood hounds, they do not typically have restraint with others in the media because taking down a big name means rewards for themselves.

Is the news perfect at this time far from it, many changes could and should be made to improve it. This is not exclusive to our media companies however, it is just people doing their best to do their jobs. Objectivity is a goal that is pretty much unacheivable yet it is at least a goal of most of our reporters.

Answer 2

Timothy Leary once said that the next revolution would be fought by hackers.

It's a Brave New World, Ziggy. I'm afraid the only real resource for untampered news is upon the Internet and that my friend, becomes a tenuous place with the Patriot Act breathing down upon our heels. Money talks. The sponsors talk. The owners of huge megalomaniac corporations set what will be discussed and what slant we receive.

excerpt: Worst of all is that at 2 a.m. on the last Presidential election night, Fox News claimed that Bush had won when the reality was that the race was too close to call. The other major news stations quickly followed Fox’s lead (except for the Associated Press).

'This resulted in the perception that Bush had won, and Bush was the presumptive President for the next 37 days. Outfoxed maintains that this false perception had more to do with the eventual outcome than the Supreme Court’s decision. Fox eventually apologized for its mistake.' Unquote.

The news is a lot like prestidigitation. The magician waves his 'non magic hand around' and the audience re-actively follows it's movements. Meanwhile the hand that does the magic, makes the palm and nobody notices and ooohs and ahhs in amazement.

Answer 3

An interesting story from real life:

I have a coworker who was there (in Florida) when Hurricane Andrew struck. The papers had these lovely stories about people "pulling together." According to my coworker, however, the people were on their roofs with shotguns.

On another occasion I heard on the radio about a "huge explosion" at a gas station. The gas station was about 600 feet from my apartment. I didn't hear any noise. When I went to check it out, it didn't seem to amount to that big of a deal, either. The report had made it sound like the end of the world, "fireballs in the air" and such.

The closer I get to situations reported by the media, the less I trust journalists.

IT'S A BUSINESS TO MAKE MONEY - NOT REPORT ACCURATE TRUTH.

Answer 4

We are talking a good thing.
But we need to consider a lot of factors :

1. How will we ensure that professionalism in the reporting field is maintained ?

2. How will we ensure that everyone's view will be heard in the news. Unbiased reporting will happen. No one will play with news to get us influenced in their preferred way of thinking, their own philosophy, their own ideology. How will we
ensure that the freedom of the people is not sacrificed.?

3. If we do not have a business running around news, how will we ensure that good and sufficient funding will be available throughout to run the entire show of "news" and its unbiased and healthy growth ?

4. If we do not have a feasible scheme whre 1,2 and 3 are met then the entire purpose of "news" will be defeated. In such a case "no news is good news" will hold true !

1> Like if the news is not reported professionally then it loses its interest among viewers and its credibility as well.

2> If biased or only one sided reporting happens or if a group uses it as a tool to infuence others then it is not news it is brainwashing.
News loses its purpose of educating masses with the current happenings with unbaised reporting. It will only preach but it can't be called news. News is a pillar in the free society and the free world and not the other way around. If we want to use news to make people slaves of our philosophy or ideology then such news defeats its own purpose itself.

3> If we can't sustain good, healthy and sufficient funding for the news over a period of time, such news cease to come to us sooner or later and the whole idea of giving GOOD News fails in its infancy.

4> from 1>,2> and 3> we logically derive 4>

Yes, I don't have a ready answer to your question which will be a healthy and good scheme for us to be able to get Good news.

But I know the right quesions about such news to become reality.
I have presented them for all of us who read this to analyze and come up with a healthy and good comprehensive solution to the problem.

Answer 5

When people like Dan Rather walk out the door, punch him in the face. When people like Katie Couric walk in the door, kick her in the c u n t.

Answer 6

That is the beauty of the internet, things that can be proven (at least digitaly) are usualy circulated until they come on the 24hr. channels.