There's little news about the current conflicts because success isn't as sexy as failure to the news folks - for whatever reasons, be they ideological, economic, both, others...

Quote from: John MorrowNote the absence of stories about heroism in Afghanistan and Iraq, for example compared to the initial offensive.

Sucks when you're headed up-wind, doesn't it?

Honestly, regardless of my particular political position or yours, the media -- a pluralism, I should point out, as there isn't one, grand, monolithic information medium -- has to be watched by all concerned parties to be kept honest.  I'll quote my .sig file here for emphasis, a quote from someone I can't imagine you'd see eye-to-eye with, but who has this issue pegged:

Quote"It is utterly urgent for resistance movements and those of us who support them to reclaim the space for civil disobedience. To do this we will have to liberate ourselves from being manipulated, perverted, and headed off in the wrong direction by the desire to feed the media's endless appetite for theater." - Arundhati Roy

Today, "resistance movements" may be liberal causes, tomorrow they may be conservative.  But always work to keep the media honest.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaAnything to keep from addressing the actual topic, eh?

I've commented on the actual topic more than once now.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaSucks when you're headed up-wind, doesn't it?

Are we?  Any more than during the invasion of Normandy, the Battle of the Bulge, Iwo Jima, or Okinawa?  Or is that why the coverage has dropped off, now that even critics are admitting that the surge is working?

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaBut always work to keep the media honest.

What has happened is that conservatives have largely abandoned the mainstream media in favor of talk radio and Fox News.  Those solutions have their own problems.  In particular, they exchange one bias for another.  What's missing is an honest dialog and any sort of real analysis that takes more than 2 minutes or a few paragraphs to explain.

About the best one can do is read the biased media of both sides and their critiques of each other and somewhere between them lies the truth.

Quote from: John MorrowI've commented on the actual topic more than once now.

You commented that the popular media has been wrong in the past when predicting dark times, not that they're wrong this time around.  I'll hasten to point to counter examples, such as the stock market crash of 1929, where commentators were suggesting nothing but blue skies ahead mere days before the crash, or those who were vocally certain that Nazi Germany could be placated, expasionism halted, and war avoided.  The advice we seem to be arrive at from both of our examples is: Expect the best, but plan for the worst.

QuoteWhat has happened is that conservatives have largely abandoned the mainstream media in favor of talk radio and Fox News. Those solutions have their own problems. In particular, they exchange one bias for another. What's missing is an honest dialog and any sort of real analysis that takes more than 2 minutes or a few paragraphs to explain.

And here we are in total agreement.  As you suggest, comparison of media reporting has ever been the wisest course of action.

!i!

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaYou commented that the popular media has been wrong in the past when predicting dark times, not that they're wrong this time around.

I think they are wrong this time for much the same reason why they were wrong last time.  They are only looking at part of the picture, ignoring important factors, and are projecting things forward with the expectation that nothing will change.

For example, the reason why US broadband will have trouble keeping up with Western Europe and Japan is that the United States is more rural and the cost of telecom infrastructure goes up substantially per person as the population density goes down (because the number of people using each mile of wire or transmitter drops).  The same thing is a contributing factor with healthcare and so on.  It's easier to provide centralized services when your population is centralized.

Quote from: Ian AbsentiaThe advice we seem to be arrive at from both of our examples is: Expect the best, but plan for the worst.And here we are in total agreement.

I think that's a reasonable suggestion so long as one doesn't get consumed with planning for the worst.  A lot of people wasted a lot of money planning for the worst in Y2K, for example.

Quote from: John MorrowA lot of people wasted a lot of money planning for the worst in Y2K, for example.

On much we agree.  On this one, I'm not convinced, to date, that it was a waste of money. But that's grist for another mill.

Quote from: James J SkachOn much we agree.  On this one, I'm not convinced, to date, that it was a waste of money. But that's grist for another mill.

I'm talking about people who, for example, buried 40 foot cargo containers on their property and packed them with food.

The mainstream American media  leans to the left on social issues. That's because the journalists and producers are college-educated, career driven urbanites, and share the biases of college-educated, career-driven urbanites as a whole. Can't see that changing much, unless lots of older Americans from Iowa and Kentucky who never went to college and live in towns of under 30,000 start becoming journalists.

However, the mainstream American media leans to the right economically. How could they not, when they're owned by powerful corporations? Commercialism is the lifeblood of mainstream media. If you want to see how the media in other countries differ on this count, check out the CBC or BBC. Public broadcasters don't share the enthusiastic pro-business, materialistic bent of America's mainstream media.

The mainstream American media also leans to the right (compared with other nations) when it comes to jingoism and patriotism. You see fluttering flags, soaring music, and fist-pounding rhetoric far, far more often on American news stations than on Canadian or British newscasts. American media do not apply anywhere near the degree of skepticism towards the government on foreign policy issues as they do on domestic issues*.

But ultimately, private news organizations are businesses. The only agenda they have is to make money. They make money by ratings. And they generate high ratings by giving their customers what they want. If the customers want Hollywood-produced lionization of the military, then that's what the customer gets. When the customers gets bored of a war, it falls off the airwaves. If the customers wants all Brittney, all the time, then that's what the customer gets.

And if some members of the public - on the left or right - feel alienated from the mainstream media, it's probably because their news values aren't as common as they think. And that's where the frustration comes it. A lot of people don't like to face how far outside the norm their own preferences and values are. They find it easier to believe the media has a secret agenda. Hate the prominence given to celebrity scandal? Don't blame the media, they're just working for their shareholders. Blame your neighbours and co-workers who tune into the shit.

* This is one of the great contradictions of America. That a people so reflexively skeptical of their government when it comes to domestic matters like running school boards, delivering the mail, and collecting taxes, are so trusting of government when it comes to foreign and military matters. It seems to me that a government acts in the best interests of the public to the extent that the citizens are well-informed and hold the government's feet to the fire. The American public seems disinclined to inform themselves about foreign policy, and yet they presume that on the foreign stage those people they don't trust to deliver the mail are acting efficiently and in their best interests. In fact, it's considered almost seditious for Americans to criticise their foreign policy, as if some branches of the government are more inherently trustworthy than others. It's bizarre.

Quote from: HaffrungThe mainstream American media  leans to the left on social issues. That's because the journalists and producers are college-educated, career driven urbanites, and share the biases of college-educated, career-driven urbanites as a whole. Can't see that changing much, unless lots of older Americans from Iowa and Kentucky who never went to college and live in towns of under 30,000 start becoming journalists.

However, the mainstream American media leans to the right economically. How could they not, when they're owned by powerful corporations? Commercialism is the lifeblood of mainstream media. If you want to see how the media in other countries differ on this count, check out the CBC or BBC. Public broadcasters don't share the enthusiastic pro-business, materialistic bent of America's mainstream media.

The mainstream American media also leans to the right (compared with other nations) when it comes to jingoism and patriotism. You see fluttering flags, soaring music, and fist-pounding rhetoric far, far more often on American news stations than on Canadian or British newscasts. American media do not apply anywhere near the degree of skepticism towards the government on foreign policy issues as they do on domestic issues*.

But ultimately, private news organizations are businesses. The only agenda they have is to make money. They make money by ratings. And they generate high ratings by giving their customers what they want. If the customers want Hollywood-produced lionization of the military, then that's what the customer gets. When the customers gets bored of a war, it falls off the airwaves. If the customers wants all Brittney, all the time, then that's what the customer gets.

And if some members of the public - on the left or right - feel alienated from the mainstream media, it's probably because their news values aren't as common as they think. And that's where the frustration comes it. A lot of people don't like to face how far outside the norm their own preferences and values are. They find it easier to believe the media has a secret agenda. Hate the prominence given to celebrity scandal? Don't blame the media, they're just working for their shareholders. Blame your neighbours and co-workers who tune into the shit.

* This is one of the great contradictions of America. That a people so reflexively skeptical of their government when it comes to domestic matters like running school boards, delivering the mail, and collecting taxes, are so trusting of government when it comes to foreign and military matters. It seems to me that a government acts in the best interests of the public to the extent that the citizens are well-informed and hold the government's feet to the fire. The American public seems disinclined to inform themselves about foreign policy, and yet they presume that on the foreign stage those people they don't trust to deliver the mail are acting efficiently and in their best interests. In fact, it's considered almost seditious for Americans to criticise their foreign policy, as if some branches of the government are more inherently trustworthy than others. It's bizarre.

You're kidding, right - almost seditious to question foreign policy? It's almost a sport in this country. Now people might not inform themselves as well as they should - but that's not because we trust our Washington Overlords. It's because we don't prioritize it with getting the mail and paying taxes.  It's more about self-interest - a virtue lost on the world these days.

And while I disagree with you on the pro business bent, I'm willing to be educated on it (being pro business, it might be a blind spot).  So tell me, where is this bias displayed?

Quote from: HaffrungThe mainstream American media  leans to the left on social issues. That's because the journalists and producers are college-educated, career driven urbanites, and share the biases of college-educated, career-driven urbanites as a whole. Can't see that changing much, unless lots of older Americans from Iowa and Kentucky who never went to college and live in towns of under 30,000 start becoming journalists.

Agreed on the cause.  But I don't think the bias is only on social issues.

Quote from: HaffrungHowever, the mainstream American media leans to the right economically. How could they not, when they're owned by powerful corporations?

Because, as you pointed out, the business owners are not the actual journalists.  Have you ever actually read, for example, Business Week?  

Quote from: HaffrungCommercialism is the lifeblood of mainstream media. If you want to see how the media in other countries differ on this count, check out the CBC or BBC. Public broadcasters don't share the enthusiastic pro-business, materialistic bent of America's mainstream media.

Can you give a specific contrast?

Quote from: HaffrungThe mainstream American media also leans to the right (compared with other nations) when it comes to jingoism and patriotism. You see fluttering flags, soaring music, and fist-pounding rhetoric far, far more often on American news stations than on Canadian or British newscasts. American media do not apply anywhere near the degree of skepticism towards the government on foreign policy issues as they do on domestic issues*.

I will agree that on the issue of American military intervention in Iraq (twice) and Kosovo, the American media was not particularly skeptical, even in those cases where it should have been (not only the anti-Saddam stories being pitched by his enemies but also the atrocity stories coming out of Kosovo).  But the mainstream press never seems terribly comfortable in that role.

Quote from: HaffrungBut ultimately, private news organizations are businesses. The only agenda they have is to make money. They make money by ratings. And they generate high ratings by giving their customers what they want. If the customers want Hollywood-produced lionization of the military, then that's what the customer gets. When the customers gets bored of a war, it falls off the airwaves. If the customers wants all Brittney, all the time, then that's what the customer gets.

The ratings for network news programs have been dropping pretty steadily for years now and it's no secret that the networks maintained news divisions as loss leaders for years, at least into the 1980s.  And the anchors are given a certain amount of independence in picking what gets reported, which is why you had Dan Rather trying to make an issue over laughably forged documents about Bush's National Guard service in 2004, to the detriment of his career.  If he was subjected to sound corporate overseers, that wouldn't have happened.  Similarly, the circulation of the big urban newspapers like the New York Times and the Boston Globe have been falling steadily, as well.  While there are certainly benign explanations for that (e.g., free news on the Internet, more competition for people's time from other media, etc.), I don't think it's safe to argue that the news media is giving people what they want well enough to grow or even sustain their market.

Quote from: HaffrungAnd if some members of the public - on the left or right - feel alienated from the mainstream media, it's probably because their news values aren't as common as they think. And that's where the frustration comes it. A lot of people don't like to face how far outside the norm their own preferences and values are. They find it easier to believe the media has a secret agenda. Hate the prominence given to celebrity scandal? Don't blame the media, they're just working for their shareholders. Blame your neighbours and co-workers who tune into the shit.

I'm not buying it given the disparity in the alienation, unless you want to argue that the right inherently has values that aren't common. :rolleyes:

Quote from: Haffrung* This is one of the great contradictions of America. That a people so reflexively skeptical of their government when it comes to domestic matters like running school boards, delivering the mail, and collecting taxes, are so trusting of government when it comes to foreign and military matters.

That's because they see domestic policies as services that they are paying for and tend to view the military as a necessity whether we use it or not and don't resent paying those in the military for their service because they know they work hard.  Writing a property tax check for $12,000, having the school board ask to install an indoor swimming pool in the high school, having mail show up looking like it went through a blender, and being considered guilty until proven innocent by the tax collector all leave a bad taste in people's mouths.  While those jets may be expensive, they sure look cool and make people feel safe.  

Quote from: HaffrungIt seems to me that a government acts in the best interests of the public to the extent that the citizens are well-informed and hold the government's feet to the fire. The American public seems disinclined to inform themselves about foreign policy, and yet they presume that on the foreign stage those people they don't trust to deliver the mail are acting efficiently and in their best interests. In fact, it's considered almost seditious for Americans to criticise their foreign policy, as if some branches of the government are more inherently trustworthy than others. It's bizarre.

There is plenty of criticism of American foreign policy.  It's just considered bad form to criticize a war in progress or to criticize America on foreign soil (or, to some extent, in an international forum).  It's sort of like bad-mouthing your Uncle while he's in the hospital or airing your family's dirty laundry on a talk show.