August 25th - Domestic - Media Coverage

[GateKeepR]

thanks for the votes on the totw, the point system will now go into effect.

the media plays a significant role in any situation, and coverage of an issue from any given slant will have an impact on the situation. even if the media is not truly that influential, politicians will still react against/for the media, causing a change in the political environment.

[DCdisco]

the media plays a significant role in any situation, and coverage of an issue from any given slant will have an impact on the situation. even if the media is not truly that influential, politicians will still react against/for the media, causing a change in the political environment.

When one sits down to really look at this media-driven world, there are many ways to answer this. While I truly believe that television briefings are the most influencial. ABC, CBS, NBC, FOX.....they all compete daily to see which network can better inform their viewers. One of the most recent times I can remember this, was that gigantic power outage in the Northeast two weeks ago. Every one of those channels had some type of special report about the outage. You could see the networks trying to compete by "who has the best camera shot" and "who can get access to the most info as it becomes available", etc.

While dedicated news channels (CNN, Fox News, CSPAN, etc.) provide around the clock news coverage, a majority of the American population doesn't sit around watching the broadcasts 24-7. Most people, like me, rely on networks like ABc, NBC, etc. to get most of their news.

While newspapers can also be very influential, the problem with them is that news is already outdated. If something happens at 3pm on Monday, if someone only relies on newpapers for their news, they won't read about it til the next morning. They aren't as up-to-date as the Network news channels, the dedicated news channels, and the internet even. Local papers may be very influential on a local scale, but they normally deal only with the local news, therefore, on a county, state, or national scale, they do not influence much, if at all. Plus, they are only printed usually once a week, sometimes longer.

Respected magazines like Time and Newsweek are just that: respected. Many businesses, schools, and families subscribe to these publications. While they can most definitely be more reliable at times (look at the research that goes into each article. they look for contradicting sources. they use only what they know is correct, viable information.) they are printed in the same fashion as local newspapers.....weekly, biweekly, or even monthly. The time lapse between the time of the event and the receipt of the information via the magazine to the consumer is much greater than with most other sources. But while they may be influential, it is not on the scale of up-to-the-minute information of the news channels and the internet.

The problem with the internet is that anyone can put anything on there. I could say I am some famous reporter, put out an article, and nobody would be the wiser, unless they knew better. I don't trust the Internet most of the time. Just a rule of thumb, I don't believe everything I read. Especially off the Net.

And finally, word of mouth.....uff.....GOSSIP, people, GOSSIP. Very rarely do I ever completely trust something I hear. While it may be influential at times, it is not reliable. And most people, when they want to know what's going on, will almost always follow up word of mouth by watching the news, or reading the newpaper. That's just how it is.

I don't really know where to put policy magazines, but they are right there with Newsweek and Time. The just have a more central topic focus. Influential, yes. But on a wide scale? No. Most of the American public don't read policy magazines.

Well, there's my two cents. :lol:

[Marxist]

I think that the key thing here is analysis. Most television news programs give you hard facts, or a humanitariam point of view, but no real analysis on the situation. Certainly I could sit down and watch CBS cover the attack on Iraq, but they have very few people who come on and tell why things are import. Therefore, my vote would have shifted to policy mags since they offer some of the best and indepth analysis. However, they don't have a wide range of influence in that not many people read them. So my vote goes for newspapers first and then the news mags. This is because the news, while old, has both facts about what happened and then analysis on it which is what really influences people.

[Chewie]

You know, as far as "influence" goes...I think the most influential source would be CNN and other dedicated news channels. But in all honesty, I believe I can find all the news I "need" from Jon Stewart and Weekend Update.

Also, I'm very disappointed that you didn't put "Variety Magazine" as one of your sources.

Finally...Is there an actual town called "Sheboygan"? That would be swell.

[GateKeepR]

my personal opinion was that the news brief channels are what hit the most people (except i have no full statistics to back any of this up, if anyone finds any, let me know so we can skew the votes ) because i think most people just watch the news for thirty minutes a day, and those abc/nbc channels provides "all" the news in just thirty. plus they are much more sensationalized as opposed to cnn (ever notice why the fox newscasters look so good?), and the people want to watch those type channels. [joke]and when the news is over, they don't have to find the remote to change to watch Survivor. [/joke]

[CAforensics]

i feel that people are now being influenced by mostly sources such as fox news and radio talk show hosts such as michael savage i also feel that the internet plays a big role with more and more people on the internet now its becoming another avenue for people to get the news, for example, latimes.com contains some of the same articles the newspaper does and i know that i have personally visited it many times to just see whats goin on in the world so basically i think that its tv and internet

[DCdisco]

Finally...Is there an actual town called "Sheboygan"? That would be swell.

Yep..........one of my friends moved there from MN......its in Wisconsin, the land of great cheese!!!!!!! :lol: yay for cheese! 8)

[GateKeepR]

many internet sites are just reprints of the daily newspaper, especially the news sites (nytimes.com, washingtonpost.com) so the internet has become more of a legitimate source. except the daily MSN page, because that seems as sensationalized as fox.

[CAforensics]

I think its key that we also look into the bias that these news stations pose because abviously the london times is not going to feel the same about the war in iraq as the latimes would be so i feel that bias is also extremely influencial because it allows the media to make us feel a certain way...maybe our next topic should be on bias

[DCdisco]

While I think bias would be a great topic to debate next.....

CAforensics, I just don't see how you can even make the comparison of the London Times to the LA times.....I don't know anyone that gets all of their news from a foreign newspaper. Yes, while something like the war in Iraq impacts more than just the US and Iraq, a London newspaper isn't likely to influence a majority of the US population. This is kind of like the example i used in my post, in the way that people are more likely to be swayed by a major news magazine like Time or Newsweek, than say any policy magazine, like Foreign Affairs or Current History.

I look at this influence issue, on how much of the population can be reached. And I still stick by my post of TV first, then newpapers, etc. etc.


(by the way, CAforensics.....that wasn't a personal attack. :wink: )