focus on internet ads
2007-05-26 10:30:19 · 7 answers · asked by Anonymous in News & Events ➔ Media & Journalism
both
2007-05-26 10:37:21 · answer #1 · answered by M 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
This question demonstrates my problem with the semantic minefield we enter whenever that much-overused term "the media" is invoked. Newspapers, magazines, websites, blogs, local and network news programs, and news and talk radio shows can all qualify as "media," yet how ridiculous is it to hold "Meet the Press," US magazine, Oprah, NPR, the Drudge Report and the Village Voice all to the same standard of informing the public? The media is NOT some singular, monolithic entity, Rupert Murdoch's News Corporation notwithstanding.
The "media," if we must call it that, is like any other trade, offering a variety of products intended to attract a variety of consumers. Therefore, the prerogative of being "informed" rests not only with the provider, but with the consumer as well. Just because you think Katie Couric fails to inform you doesn't mean you're cut off from a multitude of alternatives.
Outside of the FCC standards that radio and TV broadcasters must provide a minimum of programming "in the public interest," the stations are mostly left to their own judgment as to what best serves their viewers (and keeps them in business).
And why "rather than to entertain?" Predominantly informative media (say C-Span and Jim Lehrer) can peacefully co-exist with more entertainment-oriented fare, such as "The Daily Show" or "Real Time with Bill Maher," can it not?
2007-05-26 17:52:58 · answer #2 · answered by Willard Whyte 2 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Truthfully, the media only has responsibilities to their shareholders. By informing the public, the media could fall, and usually do, into the trap of retelling the public relation spin of sources. So if the media recalls spin, is that informing? To inform could easily become bias reporting. So as I said in the beginning, the media's only responsibitlies are to the corporate shareholders.
2007-05-26 10:43:12 · answer #3 · answered by mac 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Entertainment news is entertainment which is not to be confuse with informative news, factual informative news. The media is responsible for how these news is presented.
2007-05-26 10:43:02 · answer #4 · answered by furrryyy 5 · 0⤊ 0⤋
it could be both like the first answer. if there were adds suggesting that as technology advances the rich could be replaced with machines if the workers are going to lose more and more jobs to the machines untill only the rich are left why not replace the rich as well. why even bother with money if machines are making everything. why not do things to better the planet instead and eachother's quality of life and let freindship replace money given how it is declining in value
2007-05-26 10:48:46 · answer #5 · answered by darren m 7 · 0⤊ 0⤋
that is the whole problem. the media has no responsability. they can report anything they want. they can harrass anyone and get away with it. you cant put a restraining order on them because of freedom of the press. they can invade your privacy walk all over your grass and there's nothing you can do about it.
2007-05-26 10:43:56 · answer #6 · answered by edward m 4 · 0⤊ 0⤋
Why cant they do both? Unfortunately, mostly all they do is glorified gossip and try to scare people and propagandize about nearly everything.
2007-05-30 08:37:23 · answer #7 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 0⤋