I would agree with most of this. I would also add straight news however, which *is* possibel especially when dealiing with objective fact, ie "Gunmen in Baghdad today took an American journalist from his vehicle. His whereabouts are not currently known." Where this begins to shade into propaganda, especially ilately, is in the uncritical quoting of stakeholders in the events. Teh above lead could evolve into quite a different story depending on whether you follow it with:
"This is why we need the support of every nation, to hunt down those responsible for these outrages," said Vice President Blabla Woofwoof, emerging from his bunker. or "American troops and other agents of the United States have no business in the area," said iImam Mohammed al Mohammed, "and we will fight until we regain our sacred Islamic nation from the feet of the infidel." If I were writing it I'd follow with personal detail (which hjournalist, who did he work for, where is he from) a quote from a family member if possible, and some statistics to put it in perspective ie it is the 26th kidnapping of a foreigner this month let's say and in other Baghdad news Marines were called to Sadr city to quell an outbreak of streetfighting, while car bombswent off in six separate areas of the city. hth Dana On Fri, 11 Mar 2005 08:40:54 -0600, Gruss Gott <[EMAIL PROTECTED]> wrote: > > Brianwrote: > > Why is the reporting of "good" news entertainment, while the reporting of > > "bad" news is "real reporting" ??? The truth is what the truth is. > > There is no objective "truth" because it's impossible for any reporter > to be unbiased; be it in the reporting or the choosing of what to > report. The press isn't supposed to be about "good" news and "bad" > news, it's supposed to be about challenging the government and what > they say the truth is. As you say, good and bad are irrelevant. > > This is whole purpose of the press - to challenge the government to > ensure the people aren't slowly dominated by an increasingly powerful > government; like the Germans were in the 1930s. > > For this reason news from the federal government must be looked at as > propaganda and any news organization whose stated purpose is to > support the government must be viewed as an agent of the government - > ie, FoxNews, by it's own admission, is an agent of the federal > government and therefore should be viewed as propaganda machine. > > That said, I would say there are 5 types of "news": > > 1.) Investigative journalism. This is good, because it's usually > meant to expose some wrong doing. Good examples include Watergate, > Monica Lewinsky, etc. > > 2.) Interviews. This is good because it's important to know about > people and what they think. > > 3.) Analysis. Good analysis attempts to clarify issues and policy and > it's impact on major sectors of society. Bad analysis is just > cheerleading - this is what you see on FoxNews or CNN. > > 4.) Entertainment. Some types are ok like the Daily Show or local > newspapers, the rest is just entertainment. > > 5.) Propaganda. This is the dissemination of information supporting > an agenda. This is what most "news" programs are these days. > > ~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~~| Discover CFTicket - The leading ColdFusion Help Desk and Trouble Ticket application http://www.houseoffusion.com/banners/view.cfm?bannerid=48 Message: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=i:5:150213 Archives: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/threads.cfm/5 Subscription: http://www.houseoffusion.com/lists.cfm/link=s:5 Unsubscribe: http://www.houseoffusion.com/cf_lists/unsubscribe.cfm?user=11502.10531.5 Donations & Support: http://www.houseoffusion.com/tiny.cfm/54
