MegaSack DRAW - This year's winner is user - rgwb
We will be in touch
May have been done before - if so, apologies.
Press can be extended to mean media.
There is no doubt that the media are 'pandering to the lowest common denominator' with the predictable consequence that we are continually ratcheting down to a new low.
To answer my own question, yes.
No one is forcing anyone to buy/read/listen to/watch any of it.
Difficult to avoid.
It's not really that difficult to avoid.
Yes
People want to know what's happened in the world so avoiding is not an option.
Does the BBC website count as Press?
People still trust the press/media/news/reporters?
Crikey. 😯
Do the press get the public they deserve?
Chicken and egg
Bread and butter
In today’s world it’s way easier to filter out the crap and read/listen/watch the news you are interested in.
I think the evening news (6pm and 10pm) on both BBC and ITV should be replaced with clowns juggling elephants. For all the rigidity of topics and borish crap and scripted platitudes spouted, a bit of light entertainment would be welcomed.
I’d have to question viewing figures since Brexit, wouldn’t surprise me if these haven’t plummeted.
Plenty of 24hr news channels to gorge gossip and innuendo if you are so inclined.
As for do we deserve the Press, well there are some reputable sources of information. Those that report News in its purest sense without the whoremongering political angles and supporters, they’re easy to find and filter from the gossip mongers.
But I’d say there is a market for gossip and sensationalism, those publications are well known for that particular output and are essentially comics for the uninformed. Some folks don’t want the truth, they seek entertainment and that’s fine if that’s what they want.
What does make me laugh though, and I’m picking up on the Whailing Daily here is the HUGE fonts they use and the layout.. as thier readership enters thier final stage degeneration the font and layout become BIGGER and more Block formed. Soon it’ll be produced in braille and audio only..
It may be easy to avoid and filter direct exposure, but as we've seen with Brexit and Trump, avoiding the impacts of agenda-driven political coverage is much harder.
People want to have their views repeated back to them, current trends mean you can find the media that agrees the most with you, we also now live in a world where nobody wants to pay for anything, we quote and post articles from newspapers we don't pay for and sources that come for free (to us but paid for by advertising - click bait at times)
People want to know what's happened in the world so avoiding is not an option.
Yes it is, I avoid it. But then I don't use twitter, facebook etc,. so don't get it thrown at me.
I typically listen to news on Radio 4 or watch news on Channel 4. Some may claim those channels are biased but I don't think they can be accused of simply making stuff up, being racist, sexist, islamophobic etc,. or have any strong political bias that is being used as an agenda.
I typically listen to news on Radio 4 or watch news on Channel 4. Some may claim those channels are biased but I don't think they can be accused of simply making stuff up, being racist, sexist, islamophobic etc,. or have any strong political bias that is being used as an agenda.
Obviously you haven’t tuned in to R4 Today
Yep. We are no longer willing to pay for the good stuff and the free stuff has to be lowest common denominator to attract sufficient advertising.
It's not even hugely expensive to subscribe to online news 🙁
Yeah I paid for the Guardian and NYT mainly to support decent journalism, the BBC gets a lot of stick from both sides which is a good sign it's getting most things right.
Don't forget that this place and the forums also count as media. So going by the Brexit and Religion threads I think we get pretty much what we deserve.
Not quite as bad as YouTube comments or Daily Mail website comments but we aren't always the shining example we think we are.
Sweary old Mumsnet usually comes across a bit better.
Disclosure: I do colouring in and picture taking for local press. Our stories are mainly about planning applications so we have few chances to ruin peoples reputations/lives.
I'm a Washington Post and NYT subscriber since Trump happened and if I buy a paper it is the Telegraph as I like the crossword and the obituaries.
Difficult to avoid.
People want to know what's happened in the world so avoiding is not an option.
It’s perfectly easy to avoid, but if you want to know what’s happening then use your own filters regarding what you look at, it’s what I do.
I don’t buy any newspapers for starters, I watch the local and national BBC news, and I look at various news feeds via Flipboard, like Washington Post, NY Post, AP, and Al Jazeera.
But for several weeks I never watched any news or even looked at Flipboard, I might catch the news on 6Music or Radio 2 when driving, but that’s all my exposure consisted of.
It's not really that difficult to avoid.
Its easy to avoid paying for it - you can convince yourself that you're not consuming 'the media' but in reality you're just not consuming that media first hand. You'd have to work pretty hard to filter media driven agendas and topics out of this forum for instance, or from your peripheral vision on the filling station forecourt, or from the dinner table chat with your inlaws, or from any election campaign, or from having any knowledge that this Brexit thing is happening
I think the Lykov family managed to avoid consuming the media a few years.
I don’t buy any newspapers for starters, I watch the local and national BBC news
Well theres a perfectly good example. The BBC (at least aims to be) a non ideologically driven, impartial and informative news source. However many items on the news agenda on any given day are 'news' that has been created by other news and media sources. They may attempt to cover that topic with balance and impartiality but the reality is they're having to pander an agenda thats being driven by one of the far more 'partial' news outlets and they've no real choice to, because if they ignore or dismiss a campaign by these other agencies then they're apparently displaying bias. So the news agenda is being shaped by forces other than 'things that happened today'.
Yes, largely.
People pay for what they want. Others supply it. Reflects society pretty well.
People pay for what they want. Others supply it. Reflects society pretty well.
Pretty much this.
What news do you pay for? The current trend is not to pay for anything
Broadsheets, specialist nes feeds and journals.
The free stuff is pretty crap IMO but some want to have that. Each to their own.
People pay for what they want.
No, people take what costs them the least money at the moment they want it.
Much of the paid for is crap too, when you consider news limited is in there, the torygraph and a few others. the guardian model seems better and the NYT/FT one of 10 free a month etc seem to work well too.
Mikey, if that's the kind of society you want, then fine.
Sadly, it's easier to appeal to the basest instincts of human nature than the finest.
Which is why we need controls on monopolies and those who wish to silence views and destroy platforms that reflect an alternative view.
Even Thatcher recognised the need for a fair and balanced national broadcaster and a press that reflects the views of all.
Not this lot.
Add in the self entitlement of the 'me me me' generation who have no idea what they're throwing away and we end up with shit like this:
[url= https://www.google.co.uk/amp/s/www.bbc.co.uk/news/amp/uk-politics-42194131 ]BBC, Corbyn and GQ.[/url]
I notice the article has been expanded since yesterday to include more information on Dylan Jones' political views and motivation.
I suspect I wasn't the only one to complain.
I paid for the Guardian and NYT mainly to support decent journalism
The guardian is no less focused on its own agenda than the daily mail. It may not be such a hateful agenda, but just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's balanced reporting.
Does that BBC article make it clear that Dylan Jones was not actually present at the photo shoot?
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-gq-dylan-jones_uk_5a211ef3e4b0a02abe9023bd
Too bad that Justin Webb was too lazy and/or incompetent to dig into that small fact, or mention anything about Jones' politics!!
but just because you agree with it doesn't mean it's balanced reporting.
True,but it's well researched, well informed and much less preachy than many others. The %truth would have the mail somewhere near mid strength beer with the guardian up there on the top shelf
Mikey, if that's the kind of society you want, then fine.
If that was aimed at me, I never said it's what I want, I was referring to how it seems to be at the moment.
I don't buy any newspapers, or subscribe to any online content, largely because they all appear to have their own agendas and I would rather make my own mind up.
In my ideal world, all press would be completely unbiased and present the news as it is, not how they want to spin it, but that is complete fantasy.
In my ideal world, all press would be completely unbiased and present the news as it is, not how they want to spin it, but that is complete fantasy.
How would the press in that world decide which "unbiased facts" to present? The selection is already an editorial process - shall we publish nice pics of Harry and Megan, or pics of homeless people at food banks?
How would the press in that world decide which "unbiased facts" to present? The selection is already an editorial process - shall we publish nice pics of Harry and Megan, or pics of homeless people at food banks?
I don't think that is particularly important because you will always end up with some that are more politics-based, others that are more "lifestyle"-based, and others that are more society-based. However, what is important is presenting whatever "news" you choose to cover in a fair and balanced manner.
As I said, it's pure fantasy, though.
GQ isn’t news, and Dylan Jones is a preening tit. I’ve never heard such condescending twoddle as him going on about Jeremy ‘failing to understand’ what was required of a GQ photo shoot!
Or maybe he just has things of more substance to worry about than which ****ing 5 grand watch is most befitting of the [s]narcissistic bell end[/s] gentleman about town
For actual news I have a subscription to the Guardian, as it’s the only paper that seems to actually concern itself with facts. And i’d Buy it just for Marina Hyde.
Channel 4 news for any analysis that’s deeper than a puddle
binners - as above - he wasn't even there!!
http://www.huffingtonpost.co.uk/entry/jeremy-corbyn-gq-dylan-jones_uk_5a211ef3e4b0a02abe9023bd <
Summed up nicely by Marina Hyde
[url= https://www.theguardian.com/commentisfree/2017/dec/01/jeremy-corbyn-dylan-jones-gq-magazine-fashion-shoot-real-diva?CMP=Share_iOSApp_Other ]Corbyn should have given GQ the full Mariah Carey[/url]