BARBELITH underground
 

Subcultural engagement for the 21st Century...
Barbelith is a new kind of community (find out more)...
You can login or register.


Underground > Switchboard >

Do you read newspapers?

  
  

Page: 1(2)

 
 
Doctor Sax
15:20 / 09.10.01
Folks, I been away selling my soul for a couple of weeks and have only just seen the recent posts. I need to digest them properly before making full replies.
 
 
No star here laces
05:03 / 10.10.01
Actually I sorta disagree with all this 'no free press' ish. Yes, if you only read one paper, then you can be guaranteed not to get the full truth. The way to get around this is to read more than one. I try to read the main news stories in both the Guardian and the Mail (and possibly the Sun as well) on most days, and if it's something pertinent I'd check Indymedia as well. That way you can at least see a few of the angles, and as with navigating by compass, once you've got two you can find out where you are.
 
 
YNH
05:42 / 10.10.01
I suppose things might be different where you are, but I can see the headlines of 8 newspapers outside work on any given day, and none of them appear to be radically different; even the Wall Street Journal, of late, has basically ran the same stories as the others. None of them strayed, say 10% from the average story. The same thing happens on television.

I can access Indymedia and other sources with highspeed access, but last time I checked, that option wasn't exactly availoable to the vast majority of people.
 
 
sirius
06:59 / 10.10.01
Sax,
I just apologized to Declan McCullagh of wired for my "selling your soul to get your jobs" comment. He accepted. I hope you will also accept my apology, it was not meant as a personal insult. I intended to insult the entire profession.
I'll grant that many reporters honestly try to get the whole story, only to have the editors cut half of it out and turn comprehensive reporting into half truths.
I read the foriegn press because like member #525's observation, they all say the same thing like they all are following the same script, news might naturally be that way, but why would thousands of editorial writers all choose independently (eg to attack Clinton with the same words on the same day. Do editors have a group (hive) mind? I think not.
"Pay no attention to the man behind that curtain!" how dare a retiring editor speak the truth when he can no longer be fired for doing so!
Barbelieth Underground has no age limits.
But I may be the only disosaur here Sax, so throw out my comments as anomalies.
I just posted here because these guys (generic term includes both sexes y'all) seem openminded, and I hoped you might address my issues
 
 
Regrettable Juvenilia
08:00 / 10.10.01
quote:Originally posted by [Your Name Here]:
I suppose things might be different where you are, but I can see the headlines of 8 newspapers outside work on any given day, and none of them appear to be radically different;

Interesting. I think that this might be a genuine privilege we have here in the UK: the Guardian (and the Sunday version, the Observer), for all its faults tends to provide an almost consistently different take on events, as well as providing a regular forum for people like George Monbiot (who has a weekly column there that's been excellent in the wake of 9/11 - archived here). True, its front page has fallen prey to the 'cor, a war!' syndrome a little more readily than I'd hoped, but it will at least now and again cover the stuff that usually doesn't get out there - as will The Independent, some say, although I'm never impressed by it much myself. For example, there was a day a couple of weeks ago when I remember distinctly that the Guardian had a front page article on the refugee situation in Afghanistan, complete with harrowing photo*, whereas every single other paper led with a big fuck-off photo of a battleship...

Mind you, not sure if you have anything quite as poisonous and vile as the Daily Mail over there...

(*You could argue of course that the Guardian is playing to its audience as much as the rest of them are, and I think you'd be largely right, but I think in a case like this the end result matters more than the motivation.)

[ 10-10-2001: Message edited by: Flyboy ]
 
 
Ariadne
08:26 / 10.10.01
John Swainton, Chomsky - I do see what they're saying but I really don't think things are as simple as that.

There ARE journalists out there trying to get to the truth (through whatever personal filters they have, admittedly) and there are editors who will print it.

Just because their version of "the truth" doesn't always fit your own... well, we all have our filters, press-hating anarchists as much as Times-reading City workers.

To dismiss all journalism as corrupt is too simplistic. Read as much as you can, try to see why people write what they do and think what they do, and make your own mind up. But just not reading it gets you nowhere.

As for the papers all having the same front pages at the moment - their readers all (or mostly) want news of the bombing in Afghanistan and the journalists have limited acess to information. So they print what they can get hold of, which is naturally propagandised whitewash. But from what I've seen, there is at least some attempt to look at it sideways and see what the truth may be.
 
 
Doctor Sax
08:58 / 10.10.01
When you’re dealing with newspapers, it is true that noble principles like truth and justice might be old fashioned, but only from the top-level management perspective.
All newspapers are businesses, and most of them are really struggling at the moment. Editors are under immense pressure from managing directors to increase sales. The simplest way to do this is to give people what they want, so that they buy the paper.
Now, it’s a very arguable point as to what people want, or what newspapers think they want, or what people think they want. Or, indeed, whether they want what they’re told to want by newspapers.
But that aside, the fact is that newspapers are selling maybe 30 per cent fewer copies than they were say 10 years ago (that isn’t an official statistic, it’s a quick reckoning up by me).
If there are eight titles on the newsstands and seven of them lead on air attacks on Kabul and the eighth leads on, I don’t know, the Tory Party conference, the chances are that the majority of newspaper buyers are going to go for what they perceive as offering what they want.
As to the inherent corruptness of newspapers and all who sail in them, I honestly believe that this just is not true. Most newspapers are incredibly critical of authority, and I don’t know an editor worth his or her salt who would kill a story because they were told to by either an advertiser or a political party or someone in authority. In fact, most editors of my experience would give the story more prominence out of sheer bloodymindedness.
Newspaper journalists wouldn’t go into newspapers if they were genuinely corrupt or soulless; they’d do something far more lucrative like work for PR.
Newspaper wages are shite, especially at regional level. I don’t know a single person who didn’t get into newspapers because they were idealistic in some way. Most of them are liberal/left-wing, or at least start out that way. It is true that the job can turn you into a crotchety old fart with dubious politics after a few years, but deep down all journalists want to make a difference.
Sure, they also want to see their name on the story on the front page that makes a difference; they are led by vanity. But on the whole, they are just people, you know.
You might think the free press in the UK is a joke, but imagine if we didn’t have one. It might not be perfect, but trust me, it could be a damn sight worse.
 
 
sirius
11:06 / 10.10.01
Sax,
>When you’re dealing with newspapers, it is true that noble principles like truth
and justice might be old fashioned, but only from the top-level management
perspective.<
Who goes to work determined to piss off the boss and lose his job?
I worked for thirty years and the boss always got things his own way.
Is that why the press is so "johnnie one note" with editorializing included
in news articles? Impress management with your zeal and dedication.
-------------------------------------------
> give people what they want< Do the people want "opinion leadership"
to brainwash us all into becoming 'good little conservatives'?
>whether they want what they’re told to want by newspapers<
And told what to think by constant repetition of the Opinion Leadership.
-------------------------------------------
>Most newspapers are incredibly critical of authority<
Here in the states, they are incredibly critical of only one side eg: Clinton/Condit,
while at the same time incredibly supportive of the other.
eg: Newt Gingrich,Speaker of the House was Clinton's chief accuser, yet the press kept silent about Newt's high profile affair (which came out only during divorce proceedings), while excoriating Clinton daily about his.
[yes they are the same: our Speaker is third in-line for the Presidency and
Conservatives' openly stated strategy was 1. Impeach Clinton. 2. Gore pardons Clinton.
3. Impeach Gore. Newt becomes President/ same job same morals]
-------------------------------------------
>all journalists want to make a difference<
Reporters just wanted to get the story from all angles and tell the whole story.
Journalists put editorials inside their reporting instead of just giving us the facts.
That unfortunately is, all too often, the difference!
-------------------------------------------
>You might think the free press in the UK is a joke, but imagine if we didn’t have one. It might not be perfect, but trust me, it could be a damn sight worse.<
Here in the colonies, it IS a damn sight worse. Except for a few outstanding exceptions like
Declan McCullagh at Wired.com,
our press has become:
the trumpeting of a herd of elephants, accompanied by the yapping of their media lap dogs.
------------------------------------------
Old fashioned reporters were told to "Comfort the afflicted and afflict the comfortable."
> noble principles like truth and justice might be old fashioned<
------------------------------------------
I see reporters get the whole story and I read the half truths that get past the editors' filters.
How do you suggest we learn to recognize when half truths are presented?
How do you propose to get the truth past management and yet keep your job?
The term 'free press' is often itself a half truth:
"free to agree with the bosses' politics or find another job."
------------------------------------------
"Tell people something they know already and they will thank you for it.
Tell them something new and they will hate you for it." unknown source
 
 
Not Here Still
13:37 / 10.10.01
Yes, every journalist out there is scum.

They are all liars, and are only in it for themselves, to do things to save their own faces.

They certainly wouldn't get themselves into situations which put themselves at risk, would they?

No, they are too busy kissing their bosses arses. They never put themselves at risk.

Not in Northern Ireland.

Or Sri Lanka

Or Columbia

Or Spain

Or Haiti

No, journalism is no profession for people who want to change the world, or to let people know what is going on.

You see, once you become a journalist, in General, you lose all your integrity. You stop giving a shit, and you certainly don't try to write stories which might rock the boat.

If you have to write a contentious story, make sure you water it down into a weak version first.

Some idealists might say you are only going on what you can substantiate, the 'facts' as you are able to ensure them, but hell, who cares about them?

You know you are only in the job to be a bastard after all. And don't worry, because many of those bleedin-heart pinkos won't read whatever you've written anyway - evenm if they agree with it - because 'all newspapers are the same.'

Yes, you'll be safe enough, kissing your bosses' arse. You'll be growing fat into retirement, safe in the knowledge that journalism, is after all, a safe profession.
 
 
Not Here Still
13:40 / 10.10.01
Originally posted by Sax:

Newspaper journalists wouldn’t go into newspapers if they were genuinely corrupt or soulless; they’d do something far more lucrative like work for PR.

Amen to that.
 
 
Doctor Sax
15:45 / 10.10.01
Standing ovation from me, JB Again. Absolutely fucking excellent. God, I love my job.
 
 
Doctor Sax
15:46 / 10.10.01
Eek. You changed your name.
 
 
YNH
17:44 / 10.10.01
(dusts off old jackboots)

The odd thing here is that, every time a discussion of this sort of thing comes up, someone who's been ther and done that assumes that any indictment of and institution or process is also an explicit condemnation of each individual involved in said institution or process. See above for case in point.

If one takes these testimonials to the undying virtue of journalists at large, ze must also allow the same credibility to others who tell a different story while occupying a similar position. And there you have the discussion, largely a stalemate; one which must then explore the range of availble material in order to draw conclusions in the material world. In the case of journalism, especially in the US (see The Flyboy's comments for the UK), You have about four conglomerates owning 80% of of the nations newspapers. By default, some stories will not enter the public sphere, simply because a paper owned by Westinghouse will not likely print self-critical stories; even if the ought to be told.

Sure, 20% of papers may freely print whatever they'd like, but they also won't have the funding for such stories, nor will such be within the sphere of local papers. Even if they are, how many journalists are willing to take on, say, their town's major employer? Lots? Maybe; but what happens when it looks like the story could close the plant? Most left-leaning folks won't damn their neighbors out of hand.

It's not simple, not even as simple as the above scenarios. Most people in any profession are there because they believe in it. Most people want to contribute to their environment. I harbor no disrespect for journalists (hell % some of my best frinds% and all that), but that doesn't change the fact that news media generally set, rather than follow, the public agenda.

Funny how folks are willing to suggest that Chomsky and Said are simplifying things when the primary narrative right now is "bomb them for revenge." Complex that.
 
 
Ariadne
18:57 / 10.10.01
quote: Originally posted by [YNH]:
the primary narrative right now is "bomb them for revenge." Complex that.

You're reading different papers to me. I don't know where the 'land of metaphor' is but maybe you should broaden your reading.
 
 
YNH
23:34 / 10.10.01
While I hesitate to claim a broader reading scope thany anyone else, I suspect I'm at least batting with the average. You'll pardon me for simplifying the outrageous claim that whoever attacked the US did so because whoever hated freedom and democracy and that the retaliation effort tenuously targetted at otherwise innocent bystanders is %defending freedom% in some ambiguous way to "bomb people for revenge" won't you?

Ariadne, I must beg your pardon. I was responding to a mass of posts and conflated your first statement with everything following. It was irresponsible and catty. If you'd care to elaborate on why, say, Chomsky's position appears simplified and/or ill thought, then perhaps our discussion could evolve.

But, yah, I'm reading different material (in general) than you are; at least regarding the afformentioned headlines. I'm on the other side of the planet, smack in the middle of the US. We watch the BBC over here for the least biased television coverage available.
 
 
Ariadne
04:23 / 11.10.01
Hi [YNH],

my turn to apologise too - I responded irritably to one small bit of your post cause it seemed to be bitching at mine... sorry.

And I'm not going to get into slagging off Chomsky! God. I have enormous respect for him and reading Chomsky, for a journalist, is depressing and eye-opening stuff.

But I was just getting fed up with the proposal that all journalists are sell outs. There are a lot of journalists out there who really are doing their best, and I have seen some good coverage, questioning what's going on - and in the mainstream papers here.
 
 
Not Here Still
16:52 / 11.10.01
Originally posted by YNH:

You have about four conglomerates owning 80% of of the nations newspapers. By default, some stories will not enter the public sphere, simply because a paper owned by Westinghouse will not likely print self-critical stories; even if the ought to be told.

Yeah, I remember Naomi Klein saying something similar in No Logo.

She really stuck it to Rupert Murdoch, among others, and I bet he wouldn't have let her say that if the book was published by one of his imprints, would he?

[Handed book. Studies spine. Shuffles off.]

[edit]

Shall we start a new thread to stop rotting this one about papers, or does everyone thing the ownership of the media and all that yadda yadda has been done to death?

[ 11-10-2001: Message edited by: Not Me Again ]
 
 
sirius
00:44 / 12.10.01
Sax,
I notice that you avoid like the plague, answering the difficult questions.
My posting elswhere that you choose to ignore was to make the point that one need not sell out to make it.
Unlike you Sax, I never sold out.
I live better than journalists I know who live in constant fear of losing their jobs.
The following is a typical comment from another message board. Not my own words.

>Sadly, journalists have no soul, only a hunger for a story.<

Whats'a matter dude? Afraid to give an honest answer to honest questions?

"There comes a point when everything's lost, and for peace of mind a soul's the cost."

"Michelle Remembers" p224 Michelle smith & Lawrence Pazder 1980 private printing.
 
 
Not Here Still
15:12 / 12.10.01
An ex-Republican, evangelical Christian, and former member of the army's military intelligence? Not selling out?

Could you explain to me what you mean by selling out, if being any of the above constitutes 'not selling out?'

And I'm not Sax, I'm another pissed off journalist.

[edit]

Sirius, answers to your questions.

>>Who goes to work determined to piss off the boss and lose his job?

Not me. But I will, and I have stood up to my bosses and told them what should go in, and why, when writing a particular story.

They have been very open to debate - and I have often got my own way, and had a valid and reasonable explanation as to why, or why not if my story did change. Some of us moronic journalists are willing to stand up to authority.

>>Is that why the press is so "johnnie one note" with editorializing included
in news articles? Impress management with your zeal and dedication.

Top-level management as I understood Sax to be talking about didn't refer to editorial staff, but management of the business as a whole.

The way you are phrasing this question appears to show you have not understood this point in the same way, and that you are confusing the business as a whole with the finished product of a newspaper.

What top-level management do at a newspaper is the same as what top-level management do in other businesses - make the business as a whole run smoothly.

What Sax was probably suggesting was that the current recession is hitting newspapers in the pocket. Newspapers and media generally are one of the first industries to get hit in any recession; because the first thing other businesses will cut back on is advertising and publicity - the lifeblood of almost any paper.

It would be moronic to argue that there is no intervention in the newspaper industry; but to reduce things to sneering about 'johnnie one note editorialising included in news articles' and suggesting all journalists do it is just silly.

And there are instances where top-level management stood up for journalists to allow them to get the truth out - for instance, the publishers of the Washington Post stood up to a lot of people to get the Watergate stories Woodward and Bernstein were writing out. (Although for someone who claims to have been a CREEP member, that might not be the best choice of example, eh?)

And are you sure that the papers using 'exactly the same words to attack Clinton one exactly the same day' you referred weren't either (a) using unaltered agency copy or (b) a syndicated column?

>>Do the people want "opinion leadership"
to brainwash us all into becoming 'good little conservatives'?

You are one of the people; the answer appears to be not all of them, no.

>>How do you suggest we learn to recognize when half truths are presented?

By thinking. You may find this difficult, however.

>>How do you propose to get the truth past management and yet keep your job?

Well, can't speak for Sax here, but I write what I consider it to be down on a computer, send it over to my news editor, they examine it, it goes to the sub-editors who check for grammattical errors and design it onto a page, the newspaper is printed, ta-dahh!

(Sax: apologies if I have assumed any meanings which you didn't intend.)

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Not Me Again ]

[ 12-10-2001: Message edited by: Not Me Again ]
 
 
Sax
16:09 / 12.10.01
Apologies for appearing to duck the issue. I've been frozen out of Barbelith for 24 hours and am only just back on line. I'll go and look at sirius's questions now and try to answer them properly.
 
 
Sax
16:37 / 12.10.01
quote:Originally posted by sirius:
Let me tell you a true story: etc

Which bit is the true story? The fact that you saw all this happening (the alleged drug use) or that you tried to get the story into the papers, or both?

If it was a true story and no-one cared, then that is indeed pretty disgraceful, and I don't know of a UK paper that WOULDN'T run such a story if BACKED UP BY CAST IRON EVIDENCE that wasn't going to get the editor in the dock.

However, if you are one of the hundreds of cranks who wastes reporters' time with stupid, inane made-up bollocks, then tough shit. You didn't deserve to get any creedence.

If it is true, a friend of mine is a freelance journalist in New York who will bite your hand off for the story and the evidence. E-mail me privately and I'll put you in touch.

quote:Originally posted by sirius:
Why read one sided propaganda?

Good question. Why do you? I don't write it. I can't think, off the top of my head, of a journalist who does, apart from a few wankers on the Daily Mail, and they are largely columnists. You know the difference between a news report and an opinion column, presumably?

quote:What happened to reporters digging out the facts?

It still goes on around these parts. The competitive nature of newspapers, however, means that if several competing journalists are chasing the same story, they won't have the luxury of spending several months undercover bottoming it out. Sometimes you gotta go with what you've got, and do the follow-ups later. If you think we all sit on our arses waiting for faxes to come in from press offices, think again.

quote:Why not tell the whole truth?[/QB]
You can get a kind of piecemeal truth from reading different papers. If you're only going to read the Oregon Pigfucker, then you're never going to know the joys of fucking sheep. Read the right wing press, read the left wing press, read whatever the fuck else there is. Don't just read the spin on the story, read the quotes. They're rarely changed, although I grant they can be twisted. But you're not a moron, sirius, you can tell the difference.

quote:Surely you don't all sell your souls to get your jobs?

No more than my postman, who'd could have been a professional footballer, but has a kid to feed. No more than my colleague, who'd rather be a full-time poet, but has a mortgage to pay and an ex-wife to support. I didn't sell my soul, I knew exactly what I was getting into, and that was to inform, entertain and serve the public good, whether you like that or not.

quote:I'll grant that many reporters honestly try to get the whole story, only to have the editors cut half of it out and turn comprehensive reporting into half truths.

But why? Why would they? Editors are people like me and JB Again who've just been in the job longer. They're journalists.

quote:Who goes to work determined to piss off the boss and lose his job?[/QB]

Some mad fucker, presumably. Not me. But that doesn't mean I walk in, hang my morals on the hatstand, and say: "So which lie are we propagating today, chief?"
I mean, no-one would believe that could happen, would they?

quote:Is that why the press is so "johnnie one note" with editorializing included
in news articles? Impress management with your zeal and dedication.[/QB]

I honestly don't believe the press is "johnnie one note". Read the Guardian and the Mail. I do impress management with my zeal and dedication, but not how you think. I do it with my zeal and dedication for being a good fucking journalist. I wish I could describe the sweet feeling you get when you nail some corrupt fucker to the wall in public.

quote:How do you suggest we learn to recognize when half truths are presented?
How do you propose to get the truth past management and yet keep your job?[/QB]

Why do you think there's a deliberate aim to present half truths? Who benefits? Why do you think "management" (who are these shadowy figures, anyway?) seek to subjugate the truth. Sorry to burst your bubble, but it isn't happening to the level you think. Sorry.

I think I covered most of it there. I appreciate liberal people will always think the press is oppressive and hiding the truth, and I'm not going to change it. But by going in with that attitude every time you open up a newspaper, you're not really going to learn anything, are you?

Right, I'm off to do something less taxing in the Conversation.
 
 
Sax
17:39 / 12.10.01
Only just read this little belter.

quote:Originally posted by sirius:
Unlike you Sax, I never sold out.
I live better than journalists I know who live in constant fear of losing their jobs.

Define live better. Define selling out. How the fuck have I sold out? What exactly do you mean? That I fail to live in 1967 and work for a Gestetnered underground newspaper with a picture of a "smashing bird in hot pants" on the front and a fawning interview with a minor thug who happens to be a Black Panther on page two?
And by the way, most journalists aren't in constant fear of losing their jobs because they can usually get another one, unless they're really shit. I have yet to meet a journalist sacked for telling the truth. In fact, scratch that, I did know a journalist sacked for telling the truth, or his truth at any rate. He was canned for refusing to refer to abortion as anything other than "state-sanctioned murder". Is that the kind of principles you're looking for, cowboy?

quote:Whats'a matter dude? Afraid to give an honest answer to honest questions?[/QB]

No. That's why I became a journalist.
 
  

Page: 1(2)

 
  
Add Your Reply