One look at social media and the sub-literate who inhabit it should dissuade anyone of any ideas that "everyone can be a reporter"...god help society if we rely on the average dope - with no ethical or professional responsibilities, standards or accountability - to deliver news.
News outlets including cable and newspapers biasly write for their readers. They've made a determination that it's more important to maintain readership than provide honest news. Look up NY Times or Washington Post articles and then survey the comments. You will find 90-95% of the comments liberally biased. That's who read their papers. So they slant the news that way. Part of it is just that the reporters have political and social views that just get applied to the articles and the way they are presented. That's why they have lost credibility with the public. But it's always been like that. Just worse recently.It is evident from recent examples from the NYT, CNN and NBC that a great many “professional “ journalists lack any ethical standards regarding their responsibilities and accountability. Many also seem to be either sub-literate and unread or dishonest.
News outlets including cable and newspapers biasly write for their readers. They've made a determination that it's more important to maintain readership than provide honest news. Look up NY Times or Washington Post articles and then survey the comments. You will find 90-95% of the comments liberally biased. That's who read their papers. So they slant the news that way. Part of it is just that the reporters have political and social views that just get applied to the articles and the way they are presented. That's why they have lost credibility with the public. But it's always been like that. Just worse recently.
News outlets including cable and newspapers biasly write for their readers. They've made a determination that it's more important to maintain readership than provide honest news. Look up NY Times or Washington Post articles and then survey the comments. You will find 90-95% of the comments liberally biased. That's who read their papers. So they slant the news that way. Part of it is just that the reporters have political and social views that just get applied to the articles and the way they are presented. That's why they have lost credibility with the public. But it's always been like that. Just worse recently.
I worked in the news business for years. Back in the 80s, the accountants took over and reporters and photographers were no longer considered assets. They became expenses. Management cut back on both to the detriment of the only thing local media had to sell - local news. After digital photography became good enough, newspapers began taking submissions from the public. In one town where I lived, the paper actually solicited photos from the camera club. The amateur photographers were thrilled to appear in the paper and never thought about getting paid. The papers were able to lay off more photographers.
Accountants and attorneys (lawyers) generally do what their clients request of them. The change in values that has led to all the negative effects you refer to came from investors - those who wanted the short term profits at the expense of all other sorts of profits.In the 80's accountants and attorneys infected all industries and damaged everything they touched.
Since when did literate people become unbiased? That seems to be an interesting belief about mankind. Does selection of which photos are used biased or unbiased? Are photos literate or illiterate? If the NY Times puts a photo or article supporting it's political viewpoint on page 1 and a similar photo supporting a point of view it disagrees with on pg 47, are they acting literate and biased or literate and unbiased? I think you need to re-think your point of view. We all tend to believe the people and organizations we agree with. That's why we read or watch them.It's worth remembering that NY Times and other "Liberal" voices appeal to literate people...unlike media targeted at some "other" side...such as Fox, Washington Times (alleged newspaper), and tweets by POTUS.
I worked in the news business for years. Back in the 80s, the accountants took over and reporters and photographers were no longer considered assets. They became expenses. Management cut back on both to the detriment of the only thing local media had to sell - local news. After digital photography became good enough, newspapers began taking submissions from the public. In one town where I lived, the paper actually solicited photos from the camera club. The amateur photographers were thrilled to appear in the paper and never thought about getting paid. The papers were able to lay off more photographers.
Haven't the big city newspapers in the U.S. and maybe all of North America. especially when the owners owned papers in several cities, always been biased one way or the other? To me, that was the point of Orson Wells' "Citizen Kane" movie from the 20th Century. Nothing, really, has changed. The difference is: we are alive today and most were not back then.......Regards!This has been a good thread. It's received a couple of reports where it has swayed a bit towards making personal political statements.
I think this is a very important discussion. Of course the subject involves politics. I would not like to see it sent down to the soapbox, so please keep personal politics out of the discussion as much as possible.
Thanks in advance..
JB
I've been reported about the "workflow" of a news photographer during a press conference. He was the very last one - as he arrived the conference came short to its end. The room was full of reporters and photographers. So he was standing at the opened door of the press room.Since I retired early from news photography some time ago, the few people I still know who are active in the profession, tell me things are really dire, and they can't wait to get out. The obsession with "celebrity" that afflicts the media seems to have resulted in younger photographers who are invariably "paparazzi
orientated"......running around like panicky headless chickens squirting off ten frames a second on their digis.
The thoughtful, discreet kind of photographer is no longer wanted...it's all "up in yer face" flash on camera rubbish.
If newspaper editors think this is what people want, then how come newspaper circulation continues its steady decline into almost certain eventual oblivion?
And since the "digital revolution"....so many punters are sending in pictures to magazines etc., for free, that some don't even want to pay for professional pictures anymore.
Is this happening in other countries apart from the UK too?...I suspect it is in some form or other.
Yup. Many historians have argued that if it weren’t for the biased sensationalizing of Joseph Pulitzer’s “New York World”, and William Randolph Hurst’s “New York Journal”, the Spanish-American War would never have happened. Or going back further, the American Revolution would have had a hard time getting off the ground without the biased news papers of the time rallying support for self governance. I’d be willing to bet most of our wars relied on biased a news media to enrage the public enough to stomach the idea of sacrificing their sons and daughters to a cause that almost certainly would not have directly effect them. Or at least wouldn’t have effected them on a daily basis nearly as much as losing a loved one.Haven't the big city newspapers in the U.S. and maybe all of North America. especially when the owners owned papers in several cities, always been biased one way or the other? To me, that was the point of Orson Wells' "Citizen Kane" movie from the 20th Century. Nothing, really, has changed. The difference is: we are alive today and most were not back then.......Regards!
Would SOMEBODY please give a list of the "great, contemporary photographers & artists" who don't post on APUG?? I'd like to visit their websites and see what's so great. I warn you--I have a BA in Art History and have studied Art all my Life.
A "BA" in .......xy is just nice but sometimes not necessary.Would SOMEBODY please give a list of the "great, contemporary photographers & artists" who don't post on APUG?? I'd like to visit their websites and see what's so great. I warn you--I have a BA in Art History and have studied Art all my Life.
Great contemporary photographers AND artists? Or are you looking for photojournalists? Because generally speaking, you won't find great art in a photojournalism. You'll find some good photographers with an artistic eye for sure, but as far as fine art goes, it's not the place to look. Nor should it be. They are two different fields with two different goals made for two different audiences. Besides, if you have a BA in Art History, shouldn't you be providing us with that list? I have a BFA and keeping up with the latest trends is pretty important. I would think art history would be the same. What's going on in the modern art scene is effected by what preceded it, and conversely, what's happing in the modern art scene effects our perception of past artists.Would SOMEBODY please give a list of the "great, contemporary photographers & artists" who don't post on APUG?? I'd like to visit their websites and see what's so great. I warn you--I have a BA in Art History and have studied Art all my Life.
I don't have to work for a newspaper to see bias. That's ludicrous. I can read.I love all these people who never have worked for a professional media outlet pontificate on the sins of the industry.
Rest assured they are held far more accountable for their words than the current President. Sadly, "bias" these days now just means "people who say things I personally disagree with".
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?