An unknown preacher in Florida decides to burn some religious books. His church is a tin building and has 50 members.
A church in Memphis has had a sign up for over a year welcoming the new mosque.
Who gets the coverage? One is filled with hate in spite of what words come out of his mouth. The other practices christianity by welcoming people.
Well, you know the story. The media has turned the Qur'an burning into an international incident. Without this kind of irresponsible reporting no one would have ever heard of this guy. Why did the media do this? Because hate, sex and death sells.
Love and acceptance doesn't.
I am all for freedom of speech. I am also for responsibility and common sense. Take as an example a Westboro Church protest. How much do we hear about the person being buried? What do we hear? What do we see? Just fools shouting and carrying signs about how god hates fags.
In all of the shouting about ground zero has anyone in the media ever talked to the imam from the other mosque that is close?
Journalists, at least these kind of journalists, have just joined pedophiles as the people I most hate.
Yeah, but it's the Good KindTM of Hate, and the Bad KindTM of Sex they cover. That's the real problem.
The public gets what the public wants. :sad:
Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on September 10, 2010, 06:01:16 PM
Yeah, but it's the Good KindTM of Hate, and the Bad KindTM of Sex they cover. That's the real problem.
This is so true.
Quote from: BDS on September 10, 2010, 06:06:58 PM
The public gets what the public wants. :sad:
I don't want this shit.
Then obviously, you are not a Target Demographic, and can be safely ignored.
I think we'd all of us be surprised by how few people really do want it.
It wouldn't change anything though.
As long as the media outlets keep that mantra waving, while giving us the illusion of "choice", we're boned.
Quote from: Doktor Alphapance on September 10, 2010, 06:11:43 PM
Then obviously, you are not a Target Demographic, and can be safely ignored.
You are correct. I
prefer to be safely ignored.
Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on September 10, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
I think we'd all of us be surprised by how few people really do want it.
It wouldn't change anything though.
As long as the media outlets keep that mantra waving, while giving us the illusion of "choice", we're boned.
I scan news sites pretty much every day. The trend is, if no one died, then celebs and nutjobs are
made news. Job justification?
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 10, 2010, 06:15:31 PM
Quote from: The Good Reverend Payne on September 10, 2010, 06:12:23 PM
I think we'd all of us be surprised by how few people really do want it.
It wouldn't change anything though.
As long as the media outlets keep that mantra waving, while giving us the illusion of "choice", we're boned.
I scan news sites pretty much every day. The trend is, if no one died, then celebs and nutjobs are made news. Job justification?
Of course it is.
Huge chunks of society are doing make-work now, didn't you know?
There's big money in it.
Journalism in the mainstream is dead. Long dead. There are still people practicing it in indie media, but they are largely ignored.
We turn on the news, and we get to see villians. OK, that was easy. There's bad guys out there, burning pillaging raping hating and jihading. The viewership, a larger percentage of it, AREN'T the asshats depicted, and can go away feeling good that the bottom of the barrel is still a ways out of sight. They're not just selling sex and violence, they're selling self jsutifying peace of mind. The sins of the majorty are politely overlooked.
It's a funny thing Charley. The history books talk about yellow journalism as if it was something that existed entirely in the past. But turn on your television, pull up your favorite news site, and you'll be faced with reporting so yellow its liver might as well have failed. Because journalism is a business, and businesses are about making money, not finding the Truth, if there is any to be found. The media doesn't care about unbiased, honest journalism, because that doesn't turn much of a profit.
No, what does draw in the moola is selective bias and sensationalism. The people don't want to be told the truth, because the truth is scary. They want to be told what they want to hear, for the news to reinforce their beliefs and assure them that they are the good people. Fox News pumps out the conservative bias because they know that can net them the conservative demographic. Sell them their own reality tunnels back to them, and they'll raise you up as a Guardian of Truth. In the end, like so many other things, the problem comes down to not what the Bastardstm do, but what the people let them do.
Or at least that's what I'm told.
I think we'd be hard pressed to find members here that disagree, Charley.
At the same time, I find myself getting sucked into the extremely contagious, fear-meme, sensationalist pander-chaff now and then.
Do you think it would be worth it to pull a coordinated prank on the media that is most complicit? Something would force them to come forward and say, "We were wrong about this particular piece of fear mongering. Charley Brown, a spokesman for Discordia International, claimed responsibility. And tonight at 11, do gays buy caucasian human baby hides on the black market and use them in necrophilic bestiality rituals? You decide."
I'd imagine it serving as a symbolic inspiration that we could point to for everyone else who is fed up, not that it would make anything more than a temporary chip in the facade of course. But it could be good for lulz and meeting like-minded people.
Quote from: BDS on September 10, 2010, 06:06:58 PM
The public gets what the public wants. :sad:
Not exactly. The public is incapable of knowing what it wants. It lacks the imagination. The media tells the public what it wants and then the public laps it up like an idiot puppy cos it must have wanted that, right? The public is not sentient. It is driven by base emotions. The harder you stimulate these base emotions the more they'll buy. It's a very simple formula that used to be limited, to a greater degree, by the charade they call civilisation, by the illusions of taste and decency but not so much anymore. Just tell them they want to see people fucking or being killed and then sell them a bunch of snuff-porn, along with condoms, lube and assorted self defence paraphernalia.
the media's jerks, but they are doing exactly what we pay them for
the media's job is to report on "News"
what is "news"?
well these days it's anything that people will react to
or other news organizations will react to
any emotion or controversy
We can demonize the media, and I don't think that venom would be misplaced in any way, but I don't think they're wholly responsible for this.
The OP cites a church which had a Welcome sign up for a year. Why didn't that make the news? It would be boring-ass news! But a guy with a lighter and a sacred book, now that's a story.
Who is accountable for this Mosque hysteria being such a big deal?
Personally, I don't blame the media so much as the audience.
Cram, I think your last sentence pretty well sums it up.
I have to disagree. Just because the audience wants it doesn't mean they have to have it. My kids want to eat chocolate cake all day. Doesn't mean I'm going to let them have it.
The media uses the excuse that they are giving the people what they want to see. That if they don't show it someone else will. Freedom of speech, the right to free press..... It all boils down to what is going to stir the most shit.
Why does the audience want this? Because they have been conditioned to it over the years. By who? The media. No one would know they wanted it if it hadn't been put in front of them to begin with. Television in general has desensitized us to the point that is it isn't shocking it isn't worth our time. Or so they would like us to believe.
Just because I have the right to say something doesn't make it right.
Quote from: Kiaransalee on September 14, 2010, 04:15:33 PM
I have to disagree. Just because the audience wants it doesn't mean they have to have it. My kids want to eat chocolate cake all day. Doesn't mean I'm going to let them have it.
The media uses the excuse that they are giving the people what they want to see. That if they don't show it someone else will. Freedom of speech, the right to free press..... It all boils down to what is going to stir the most shit.
Why does the audience want this? Because they have been conditioned to it over the years. By who? The media. No one would know they wanted it if it hadn't been put in front of them to begin with. Television in general has desensitized us to the point that is it isn't shocking it isn't worth our time. Or so they would like us to believe.
Just because I have the right to say something doesn't make it right.
You aren't trying to make a profit from giving your kids cake.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 14, 2010, 04:17:33 PM
Quote from: Kiaransalee on September 14, 2010, 04:15:33 PM
I have to disagree. Just because the audience wants it doesn't mean they have to have it. My kids want to eat chocolate cake all day. Doesn't mean I'm going to let them have it.
The media uses the excuse that they are giving the people what they want to see. That if they don't show it someone else will. Freedom of speech, the right to free press..... It all boils down to what is going to stir the most shit.
Why does the audience want this? Because they have been conditioned to it over the years. By who? The media. No one would know they wanted it if it hadn't been put in front of them to begin with. Television in general has desensitized us to the point that is it isn't shocking it isn't worth our time. Or so they would like us to believe.
Just because I have the right to say something doesn't make it right.
You aren't trying to make a profit from giving your kids cake.
So it is the money, not the newsworthiness that drives the media? OK, I can agree with that. I just don't think it's the audience. I think the media will do anything and everything they can to stir the shit.
Don Henley said it best...
QuoteI make my living off the evening news
Just give me something, something I can use
People love it when you lose, they love dirty laundry
Well, I could've been an actor, but I wound up here
I just have to look good, I don't have to be clear
Come and whisper in my ear, give us dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em all around
We got the bubbleheaded bleach-blonde, comes on at 5
She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye
It's interesting when people die, give us dirty laundry
Can we film the operation? Is the head dead yet?
You know the boys in the newsroom got a running bet
Get the widow on the set, we need dirty laundry
You don't really need to find out what's going on
You don't really want to know just how far it's gone
Just leave well enough alone, keep your dirty laundry
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're up, kick 'em when they're down
Kick 'em when they're stiff, kick 'em all around
Dirty little secrets, dirty little lies
We got our dirty little fingers in everybody's pie
Love to cut you down to size, we love dirty laundry
We can do the innuendo, we can dance and sing
When it's said and done, we haven't told you a thing
We all know that crap is king, give us dirty laundry
I'm trying to envision a media which doesn't focus on sensationalist bullet points. A Good MediaTM which does what we want it to.
How would this Good Media TM cover the Qua'ran burning incident? Would they say, "Hm, reporting on this is going to exacerbate the drama"
...and then not report on it?
That sounds a little Orwellian to me.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
I'm trying to envision a media which doesn't focus on sensationalist bullet points. A Good MediaTM which does what we want it to.
How would this Good Media TM cover the Qua'ran burning incident? Would they say, "Hm, reporting on this is going to exacerbate the drama"
...and then not report on it?
That sounds a little Orwellian to me.
How is one man with a tin church and 50 members worthy of all this? That's my point. A volcano was made out of a molehill.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 14, 2010, 04:42:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
I'm trying to envision a media which doesn't focus on sensationalist bullet points. A Good MediaTM which does what we want it to.
How would this Good Media TM cover the Qua'ran burning incident? Would they say, "Hm, reporting on this is going to exacerbate the drama"
...and then not report on it?
That sounds a little Orwellian to me.
How is one man with a tin church and 50 members worthy of all this? That's my point. A volcano was made out of a molehill.
EXACTLY!! If the media had not blown it into the mess it was, no one would have known and few would have cared.
Quote from: Charley Brown on September 14, 2010, 04:42:55 PM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
I'm trying to envision a media which doesn't focus on sensationalist bullet points. A Good MediaTM which does what we want it to.
How would this Good Media TM cover the Qua'ran burning incident? Would they say, "Hm, reporting on this is going to exacerbate the drama"
...and then not report on it?
That sounds a little Orwellian to me.
How is one man with a tin church and 50 members worthy of all this? That's my point. A volcano was made out of a molehill.
It should have just stayed local news instead making national coverage.
For the record, it was already being reported on overseas before the US media picked up on it.
I can only assume it was for purposes of inflaming people.
The reason that one nutjob with 50 followers made global news is because this event was a good microcosm of the vibe in America right now. Everybody can relate to it. It created the opportunity for lots of latent emotion to rise to the surface. It became a channel for people to express their opinions and reaffirm their beliefs.
The media is an engine which communicates small local signals to a larger group of people. That's really what it's there for [in part].
what's the threshold for importance? If he had 200 people in his congregation would that be news? 500? 1000?
If you ask me, the size is kind of irrelevant. The fact that he got coverage despite being such a fringe group actually gives me hope - it's a sign that any of us could enter the world theater if we figured out the right angle and the right timing.
The other great thing about this event (other than the fact that no qua'rans were burned) is that it gave the anti-islamophobia signal an opportunity to be expressed. That's the real message here, there's 50 people in FL that want to burn a Qua'ran and the entire country (except Fred Phelps) is against them. So while we focus on the hate, from where I'm sitting, it's actually good news.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 05:01:55 PM
The reason that one nutjob with 50 followers made global news is because this event was a good microcosm of the vibe in America right now. Everybody can relate to it. It created the opportunity for lots of latent emotion to rise to the surface. It became a channel for people to express their opinions and reaffirm their beliefs.
The media is an engine which communicates small local signals to a larger group of people. That's really what it's there for [in part].
what's the threshold for importance? If he had 200 people in his congregation would that be news? 500? 1000?
If you ask me, the size is kind of irrelevant. The fact that he got coverage despite being such a fringe group actually gives me hope - it's a sign that any of us could enter the world theater if we figured out the right angle and the right timing.
The other great thing about this event (other than the fact that no qua'rans were burned) is that it gave the anti-islamophobia signal an opportunity to be expressed. That's the real message here, there's 50 people in FL that want to burn a Qua'ran and the entire country (except Fred Phelps) is against them. So while we focus on the hate, from where I'm sitting, it's actually good news.
:|
This has the potential to change my mind. I am not used to this.
:|
Cram you Damulus. Cram you.
Mind changed.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 04:37:18 PM
I'm trying to envision a media which doesn't focus on sensationalist bullet points. A Good MediaTM which does what we want it to.
How would this Good Media TM cover the Qua'ran burning incident? Would they say, "Hm, reporting on this is going to exacerbate the drama"
...and then not report on it?
That sounds a little Orwellian to me.
imagine something like the internet? The force-fed media experience is on borrowed time.
The internet thrives on sensationalism even more.
Sure there's the minority of good reporting out there, but ultimately all the bad reporting of the media comes down to what people want, people want sensationalism, with inaccurate hard news in the back pages. For the minority who really want good news (whatever that is) the internet helps, for the other (what, billion, half billion?) people on the internet it just makes the problem worse.
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 05:01:55 PM
The other great thing about this event (other than the fact that no qua'rans were burned)
Not in Florida, but two preachers from Tennessee did, I read in my newspaper this morning.
But then, it sort of
is part of the news in NL, with the whole Geert Wilders crap going on and him dragging his sorry ass to ground zero this weekend etc etc etc. And this is somewhat related, after all.
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 15, 2010, 09:55:20 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 05:01:55 PM
The other great thing about this event (other than the fact that no qua'rans were burned)
Not in Florida, but two preachers from Tennessee did, I read in my newspaper this morning.
But then, it sort of is part of the news in NL, with the whole Geert Wilders crap going on and him dragging his sorry ass to ground zero this weekend etc etc etc. And this is somewhat related, after all.
Not only did Wilders show up, so did the English Defence League. Funny, since the British branch of "Stop the Islamification of _____" groups leader told me, in person, that he disavowed the tactics of and the EDL in total, after I asked him about the large number of Swastikas, Iron Crosses and Sig runes that could be seen on protest members (the conceit of the various SIO_ groups is that Islam is fascism, thus creating an amusing problem for them). The American protest was put on by Stop the Islamification of America. And yet, the EDL were present.
Maybe a memo was lost?
Quote from: Cain on September 15, 2010, 10:02:04 AM
Quote from: Triple Zero on September 15, 2010, 09:55:20 AM
Quote from: Cramulus on September 14, 2010, 05:01:55 PM
The other great thing about this event (other than the fact that no qua'rans were burned)
Not in Florida, but two preachers from Tennessee did, I read in my newspaper this morning.
But then, it sort of is part of the news in NL, with the whole Geert Wilders crap going on and him dragging his sorry ass to ground zero this weekend etc etc etc. And this is somewhat related, after all.
Not only did Wilders show up, so did the English Defence League. Funny, since the British branch of "Stop the Islamification of _____" groups leader told me, in person, that he disavowed the tactics of and the EDL in total, after I asked him about the large number of Swastikas, Iron Crosses and Sig runes that could be seen on protest members (the conceit of the various SIO_ groups is that Islam is fascism, thus creating an amusing problem for them). The American protest was put on by Stop the Islamification of America. And yet, the EDL were present.
Maybe a memo was lost?
:lulz:
The right always cracks me up. This is the same problem that I've found my dad complaining about within the BNP.
My dad, coincidentally, is now the treasurer of the BNP within Scotland. I plotzed.