What are some options to stop the media from telling you all lies?

Question

In my opinion we need a non-profit, worldwide media organization that tells us the truth, not biased opinions that are totally off base. If the media were allowed to run rampant in Europe and Japan during WW2 like they are now, the Axis may never have been stopped. War is best dealt with by those trained to do so. The American people, and the world, deserve to know the truth of what is going on with Iraq and Afghanistan, and the opinion of Newsweek and CNN is not that. What do you all think?

I think SURECY read my mind. Good answer.

Answer 1

The media & printpress are BUSINESS CORPs.
They should be treated as such since their owners have the authority to select (or create )a product ("report") that will produce exactly what business's crave --profits.
In this industry profits result from their ratings or circulation sales.A higher market share yields more advertisers,investors ==profits.
Since they are afforded protection (freedom of the press mandate), they may select and produce whatever their owner(s) choose.
They have no regulatory oversight,nor are they required to present factual or verified "information"..thus the owners may and DO choose to skew or alter information to produce a desired result...
....If Wallmart started a campaign maligning the Unions because they want to force Wallmart to become a union shop, Wallmart would be prosecuted for lible,intent to damage,xxx...etc.
YET a union can buy airtime or elicit the media owners support" which translates into press/media exposure i.e.the evil wallmart stories/reports ....same for other corporations or politicians that want the "right exposure"
Since the media/press are "protected"), THEY can accommodate anyone or any agenda they choose or that promises increased profits. The agenda was very clear when the media/press produced a " report"on Korans being flushed down toilets at Gitmo. They heard it from a undisclosed usually reliable source !!!! The report produced rioting from outraged muslims...many were injured ,some died...The families of the dead&injured were not compensated since all that was required was a statement indicating that perhaps the report was not totally accurate...
They are not responsible for anything ;They are protected!
...I think the way we fix the media/press is simply to remove their protections and demand that NEWS SERVICES define NEWS as a straightforward report on the facts as provided by the official source. All of the other speculative,opinionated,political commentary etc can be broadcat on a separate entertainment channel . Politicians should also fund their own channel where they can inform,whine and rant to the public or discuss their plans for xxxxissues or their most important issue of re-election.
....A news report =the facts of the event, including verifiable causes not blather from guest experts,pundits, political mouthpieces, activist or professors. Everyone has to form their own opinion not be bombarded with false "statements",global warming or illegal rants, weird statistics** billed as fact etc..
...I AGREE the public needs to be able to receive information without having to sort out the intent or veracity. Sad to say many of the public dont bother to think about whats said they just repeat what they like- just like a parrot.
**so if no one knows who /where illegals are then on what basis is a statistic created that assigns a number to the xxxmillions of illegals in the USA??? guess you can choose your parameters and make up a number depending on what point you wish to make...:)

Answer 2

I'll take liberal talk shows, CNN, Common Dreams.org, and any other progressive poignant source of information that is published or spoken as a viewpoint more closer to the absolute truth or description of any given story. Nothing that Fox News or any righty talking points nutjob radio or T.V. says is the truth and most of their stories are proven to be untrue by liberal sources. So not only do lefties have to report the truth, they have to constantly point out what the righty's are lying about. In that respect, the news is always bad because it's never reported truthfully and what ever does make the news is never good news. Members of the popular media went before the out-going Congress to address all the issues regarding the media bias the persists to this day. But that was Bush's Congress where the King's good name shall not be taken in vane and of course, no new Fair and Balanced Media Bills made it out of Committee. Expect results in 2007..

Answer 3

You need to hit the media outlets that spin everything in the pocket book. They are in the news business to make money not report facts. Everything is about what sells and there is a certain liberal section that is trying to influence everybody into doing what is not best for the country. This means don't buy from their sponsors, commercials fund the media. Look at the liberal newspapers. They are downsizing left and right. Air America is bankrupt. Not everybody believes their garbage. As for war zones, I always thought this embedded reporter thing was a bad idea and would come back to haunt anybody who associated with them. If you think the media is bad now, you should look up how it was during the civil war when there was no such thing as journalistic ethics.

Answer 4

Well every time you form a non-profit organization, expect it to be populated by Liberals with only one viewpoint.
You are better off finding your answers by well reasoned thought. The so-called "Mainstream media" is dreadfully left wing, so take what they say with a grain of salt. I look to multiple news sources online, such as "the drudge report" and any blog that is well run (the Left wing blogs allow the most profane and angry discussions). I would also try listening to talk radio. If you listen/view all things with an open mind you will soon see the biases in all things. At that point you can discount either Liberal or conservative opinion via your own intellect.

Answer 5

Here's what I do.
Refuse to watch any of the 24 hour news channels, unless it is CSPAN. Slow news days will produce fluff at best, lies at worst.
Then, get your news from several sources, print and TV, and radio.
Next, i have a basic understanding that people see things with different eyes, and different filters. We can report on the same story, but have differing perspectives. We are humans. Also a good argument for not taking the bible so literally....it was written by humans.

Answer 6

Right on.
All the journalists on Fox News wore little American Flag Emblems after 9/11.
CNN and others criticized and made fun of Fox for being pro-America.
Some Americans still hate Fox because of it.
Liberals and many Democrats are still in a rage against Fox.

Answer 7

Yes, except for the fact that we would be listening to Al-Jazeera's opinion on things. And a worldwide media source would likely have some extreme views that may be good for some countries, but ruin the US. I agree, but I just do not know how well it would work. Some news channels do seem biased, such as Fox, but who is to say that a worldwide news wouldn't favor one country?

Answer 8

Actually, I don't think they are allowed to tell us enough of the truth. The only time you see a military funeral is when it is on the local news. Apart from reporting body count, I haven't seen one casket coming home with ceremony. Plus, since things got so bad in Iraq, you don't get many pictures of the damage that the Sunnis and Shias are causing there. Reporters can't get out and about.

Answer 9

Good luck. life is not fair, and this world is full of bull sh!t. you have to take what you want ot believe, and throw out what you dont. its like religion. you cant stop all the relegions you dont believe from practicing, you can just follow the one you think is right. a type of media that only told the truth would be impossible, everyone has different opinions.

Answer 10

I believe NPR and PBS come the closest in our country. It's tough, though. Everyone has a need for funding, and to continue working they need to appease their bosses and/or audience.

I catch BBC every once and a while to get a different perspective. Not saying they don't have their bias, but they certainly cater to a different set of sponsors and owners.