aquascoot wrote on Mar 20
th, 2019 at 9:03am:
Mattyfisk wrote on Mar 20
th, 2019 at 8:08am:
aquascoot wrote on Mar 20
th, 2019 at 7:54am:
i read that but it was a bit "double speak".
they are saying that deaths in war are decreasing (proportionally) but because population is rising , this is not the case ??
i suppose that might be the case.
i still think a lot of the percieved violence in the mainstream media is due to everyone carrying an iphone and being a war correspondant.
imagine the channel 9 news covering WW2 if every american, brit, german, russian and japanese had an i phone and internet access and 3 social media accounts !!!!
It's the process of news itself. News reports conflict. It's nearly always bad. It doesn't report long-term trends.
I don't know if people have
more access to news, but news has become more competitive. This results in reports of more conflict, or more desperate and catastrophic conflict.
Check out the Economist if you want a more realistic view of the world.
social media has led to exageration becoming the norm as the drive is just to get eyeballs.
if you arent on the extremes (sarah hansen young or fraser anning) you are dog meat in terms of getting attention.
Very true, but what I've noticed in news stories is the increased tendency to repackage other media reports.
You know, TRUMP CALLS CNN JOURNALIST A LIAR. BREAKING: HILLARY SLIPS UP IN NO HOLDS BARRED INTERVIEW. BANNON BAGS OUT BREXIT ON HANNITY. FOX NEWS COMMENTATOR SLAMS PLANS FOR BORDER WALL.
With a few exceptions (such as Politico, Breitbart, the Daily Beast), the news still comes from mainstream media sources. It is then put through a spin cycle. There's also the reporting on politicians' social media. The mainstream media never misses a Trump Tweet. A lot of stories are comments on other publications' reports on these.
And then, of course, there's fake news and propaganda. The far-right have successfully capitalised on this because they have an unquestioning audience. They also have financial backers with deep pockets, such as the Mercers and Breitbart.
The aim of Breitbart is unapologetically to get those with far-right views into power. This differs to publications like the Washington Post (now owned by Jeff Bezos), which reports, fact-checks and commentates on politicians of ALL stripes. Breitbart will never, for example, publish a story critical of Trump. It's aim, if anything, is to bring down Trump's enemies.
Fox News, a mainstream media source, has exactly the same aim and tactics. Fox switched from backing conventional Republicans to the far-right outsider, Trump.
It was touch and go there for a bit. Fox editorial flirted with Hillary. But, in the end, it went with its audience - a financial decision as much as an ideological one.