Watching the ### news the other night briefly, and apparently there were some fears, in relation to a fire that may have been got under control and the weather maybe could turn bad

There was some fear about apparently. The exact individuals that were experiencing the fear weren’t named. There was no inexactitute i’m sure as there are fears out there about fire’s.

Later in the news the fear word was uttered again in relaton to something else, and again I thought this couldn’‘t be untrue as somewhere out there there would be some fear in some individual’s mind to do with what was beng talked about.

I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization.

They also facilitate useful concerns, give individuals and groups a voice, empower them maybe even, contributing to a safer more predictable life for the many. Their objectives are utilitarian no doubt, or it could be they’re utilitarian by complete accident.

Media doesn’t want more fear than is necessary, the many don’t in any way act out of fear of the media.

I note too rather than loss of life (however similarly it might be said, in context) there’s a tendency to say killed.

transition said:

I understand the media >< respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization.

Media doesn’t want more fear than is necessary

I’m sure I read somewhere in the media that you were born yesterday!

>I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

mollwollfumble said:

>I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

or simply, to inform?

>I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

Oops, sorry for double post.

mollwollfumble said:

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

That’s certainly true of the Daily Mail, which specialises in righty wrath & paranoia.

While the Guardian specialises in lefty outrage.

mollwollfumble said:

>I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

Yes, was being a tad that word-with-all-the-vowels-in-order, or something, it’s a mood thing, i’m having some technical difficulties and working to restore normal programs as soon as possible.

None of the previously expressed viewpoints are correct IMO.
The media exist to make money and stay in business fullstop.
Sometimes this is best achieved by stoking the fears of the mob, sometimes it’s best achieved by saying the other guy is stoking the fears of the mob.

>The media exist to make money and stay in business fullstop.

Hmm, ask Rupert – often it’s just as much about power and influence.

Bubblecar said:

>The media exist to make money and stay in business fullstop.

Hmm, ask Rupert – often it’s just as much about power and influence.

I don’t think Rupert would be happy living in Khayelitsha while still having influence…

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>The media exist to make money and stay in business fullstop.

Hmm, ask Rupert – often it’s just as much about power and influence.

I don’t think Rupert would be happy living in Khayelitsha while still having influence…

Of course, but the more profitable your media empire, the more power and influence you wield. Which might well be your main motive once you’ve made your first billion.

Bubblecar said:

poikilotherm said:

Bubblecar said:

>The media exist to make money and stay in business fullstop.

Hmm, ask Rupert – often it’s just as much about power and influence.

I don’t think Rupert would be happy living in Khayelitsha while still having influence…

Of course, but the more profitable your media empire, the more power and influence you wield. Which might well be your main motive once you’ve made your first billion.

News runs its actual newspapers at a loss but some have suggested that they continue with it to wield influence that can benefit their various entertainment-related streams of revenue.

it is mostly anger rather than fear. thing is to pick who you read. most news is about anger…though that comes in verying degrees from slightly pissed of to rage. most would be on the lower end. what is the alternative? no news or just nice stuff? if so how would any wrongs in the world be righted? it is a naive position to take that all news is fear and anger….so what.

as long as we all still employ our natural ability to be skeptical with anything we read

Murdochs papers often have opposing views.
eg. The Wall Street Journal in America is pro immigration while The Sun in Britain is anti immigration. Whatever sells best in a particular market.

Jing Joh said:

Murdochs papers often have opposing views.
eg. The Wall Street Journal in America is pro immigration while The Sun in Britain is anti immigration. Whatever sells best in a particular market.

He needs to be able to attract & retain high quality journalists on the WSJ, which is not an issue on The Sun :)

as far as the murdoch press goes, I only read the daily telegraph, & I can say that it is far less biased than anything that either fairfax or the abc reports.

The_observer said:

as far as the murdoch press goes, I only read the daily telegraph, & I can say that it is far less biased than anything that either fairfax or the abc reports.

mollwollfumble said:

>I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

but rarely suggest any solution to this anger and fear, this is the preserve of the ruling elite

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

>I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

but rarely suggest any solution to this anger and fear, this is the preserve of the ruling elite

Yep.

bob(from black rock) said:

wookiemeister said:

mollwollfumble said:

>I understand the media are very community spirited, everything from small groups to the entire planet of peoples, and the media respresent the desire for harmony and fear minimization

The exact opposite is true. The only purpose of the news on TV, and presumably in newspapers as well, is to create a state of anger and fear.

but rarely suggest any solution to this anger and fear, this is the preserve of the ruling elite

Yep.

Unless the suggestion is that voting will alleviate ones concern.