CEOExpress Blogger Private Label
 CEOExpress Home

 Total visits to this poll: 45453

This icon appears on your homepage
when there are new posts.

      Search Messages:           
AllThis Forum

Which do you think is best capable of influencing for the good?

Both ó they have to work together
Some other influence ó please share

Forum View Preference: Basic | AdvancedOpen Forums/Previous Polls | Suggest a Poll
Return to Today's Poll

Sort By Newest Sort By Newest 1-10 of 3397 11-20 >>  Last >

1. Patricia Pomerleau CEOExpressSelect Member
     Forum Moderator
     (2/4/2019 12:19:28 PM)
     Message ID #323905

View All Related Messages

In recent years, the dust-ups between politicians and the media have grown more heated. Which do you think has more influence over the landscape, home and abroad: Politicians or the media?

While politicians are pushing back, at least one school of journalism is taking a more objective approach. From the University of Oregon:

Itís true that the media have played an important role in politics since the First Amendment established freedom of the press as a cornerstone of American democracy. Voters need information to make educated decisions, and itís journalistsí job to give it to them.

But can the media really alter the outcome of an election?

In addition to false statements by Trump of widespread voter fraud, which most experts agree would be impossible to accomplish, Trump is alleging the the election has been 'rigged' through biased media coverage. Trump opponents say that Trump wants to control all press like Putin and other dictators--he wants his lies to be made truths. Trump supporters believe that the press, with the exception of FoxNews, is lined up against the president and won't give him a break.

Recent shifts in the media landscape have changed how the press interacts with candidates, campaigns and the voting public. And, at a time when trust in the presidency is at an all-time low, Trump and his supporters believe that trust in the media is at an all time low.

To find out what the research says about mediaís evolving role in the elections process, we talked to three scholars from the UO School of Journalism and Communication.

Univ of Oregon:
Is one more powerful than the other, or do politicians and journalists have to work together for good?

Editor's Note: We welcome comments, posts, and informed debate from a wide range of perspectives. Personal attacks, insulting/ vulgar posts, or repetitious/ false tirades have no place and can result in moderation or banning.
Civility ó Clear-minded criticism is welcome, but play the ball and not the person. This includes speculation about motives or what Ďsort of personí someone is. Civility, gentle humor, and staying on topic are superior debating tools.
Relevance ó Please maintain focus on the topic at hand. Do not attempt to solve big problems in a single comment or to offer as fact what simply are opinions.
Ponder before you post ó Itís bad form to dominate a discussion either by multiple posts in a row or too many posts in a given forum.

Message edited by user at 2/5/2019 12:00:56 PM

2. Joe Delcampo
     (3/2/2019 1:32:59 AM)
     Message ID #327055

View All Related Messages
Neither. I think the tenets of Judeo/Christianity are far more relevant to this end. Therefore, religious faith has far more sway for long range clarity than mere mortals in politics and its Ally, the press. We spend too much time letting them both dictate how we live our lives. Enough.

3. T Cavanagh CEOExpressSelect Member
     (3/2/2019 6:50:56 AM)
     Message ID #327056

View All Related Messages
Itís interesting that none of these Oregon Journalists commented on the business end, Journalism is a business, always has been, and the model has changed.

About 15 years ago, the founder of approached the BOD at The Boston Globe in a Shark Tank moment, he needed start up capital, the Board blew him off. At that time the Globeís Sunday job classifieds brought in about $1 million in revenue every week

The NYT had bought the Globe in 1993 for $1.1 billion, by 2013 it sold the Globe to John Henry for $70 million. Today the NYT has shrunk down to two floors and has rented out the rest of the building. Bezos bought the WAPO for $250 million

Think about those numbers, the impact is startling

Andrew Breitbart and Matt Dudge came up with the new business model,
click bait. Breibart helped Arianna get her start, she worked for Andrew. Anyone of these sites are designed to capture the click. The headline rarely matches the story, doesnít have to.

Each click brings minuscule revenue, Google Ads, Adroll, FB target ads have replaced the Sunday Classifieds, the revenue adds up in a hurry.

As Patricia has pointed out, FB is now the largest newsfeed. Advertisers pay billions to FB to target ads, users give up their demographic for free and wonder why they are always seeing certain ads. Then thereís the Adroll, even your Amazon Alexa will capture your IP address. Your Ad targeted directly at you will show up on NYT,WAPO,WSJ,Drudge, anywhere this is how they stay in business.

Download an Ad blocker

The whole idea is to capture that unique click, the content is secondary, and therein is the problem, misinformation and bias. Now we also have You Tube, anyone can upload any content within reason 10,000 hits equals $20 in royalties, get up to 400,000 youíll be paid for ads, now the bucks roll in

Itís no longer journalism.

Lara Logan recently broke the ranks. 90% of her colleagues were Liberal, and the message is the same, day after day, over and over. There is no diversity. Perhaps the reason FOX is so successful, they have no competitors.

People here will vehemently disagree with me. But when you are always standing in the woods counting the trees, you canít see the forest. The newsfeeds agree with their viewpoints, in fact it simply reinforces their belief system

Does the media influence elections? Of course they do, which is the reason Dictators take over the media in Socialist States. Putin had no chance in Ď16 attempting to pursued the voters, in fact it is comical to think that way

Message edited by user at 3/2/2019 7:06:01 AM

4. D Robb
     (3/2/2019 7:47:53 AM)
     Message ID #327057

This message is in response to Joe Delcampo ( message id #327055 )  View All Related Messages

I have to disagree. I think it is fine if anyone wants use their religion as a way of deciding how to live, but there are many other religions within Christianity that disagree with each other, as well as branches of Judaism, as well as several other legitimate religions. IMO it is best to keep all religions as personal guides rather than create a theocracy. Moreover, organized religion is interpreted by humans, and, as we have seen with the Catholic Church, predator priests have destroyed any moral authority the church has.
No, journalists keep us safe. Some can argue that because of the insatiable appetite of television and multiple channels that journalism strays from reporting the news to interpreting the news. However, life is complex and events are interpreted differently by different regions of the country, and by different countries. Reading several domestic newspapers and some international newspapers helps to balance that.
When there was a draft we used to be less isolated. We met, lived and worked with people from all across the US, and came to appreciate that there were good people (and a few bad people) from everywhere. We have lost that.

5. Bo Noles
     (3/2/2019 7:59:45 AM)
     Message ID #327058

View All Related Messages
The unanimous Declaration of the thirteen united States of America
When in the Course of human events it becomes necessary for one people to dissolve the political bands which have connected them with another and to assume among the powers of the earth, the separate and equal station to which the Laws of Nature and of Nature's God entitle them, a decent respect to the opinions of mankind requires that they should declare the causes which impel them to the separation.

Editor's Note: Cutting a pasting is not allowed. Please stop. I've deleted your other posts.

6. T Cavanagh CEOExpressSelect Member
     (3/2/2019 8:03:26 AM)
     Message ID #327061

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #327057 )  View All Related Messages

Dan Rather was fired for unverified reporting.

Today, what he did is just another day in the newsroom.

If you ignore the business model today with the internet, then you are naÔve with what has happened to your "newspaper". Your weekly News magazines have failed, too late to save. Within another 5 years newsprint will be gone

7. Bo Noles
     (3/2/2019 8:06:53 AM)
     Message ID #327062

View All Related Messages
There was a time the media was working for the good of the people. That was when it was truly a Free Press. The purpose of public media is to provide programs and services that inform, educate, enlighten, and enrich the public and help inform civil discourse essential to American society.

The main media venues are no longer free. They are now totally controlled by the deep state. Operation Mockingbird.

Operation Mockingbird is a large-scale program of the United States Central Intelligence Agency (CIA) that began in the early 1950s and attempted to manipulate news media for propaganda purposes. It funded student and cultural organizations and magazines as front organizations.[1]

According to writer Deborah Davis, Operation Mockingbird recruited leading American journalists into a propaganda network and oversaw the operations of front groups. CIA support of front groups was exposed after a 1967 Ramparts magazine article reported that the National Student Association received funding from the CIA. In the 1970s, Congressional investigations and reports also revealed Agency connections with journalists and civic groups. None of these reports, however, mentions by name an Operation Mockingbird coordinating or supporting these activities.

A Project Mockingbird is mentioned in the CIA Family Jewels report, compiled in the mid-1970s. According to the declassified version of the report released in 2007, Project Mockingbird involved the wire-tapping of two American journalists for several months in the early 1960s.

8. D Robb
     (3/2/2019 8:34:42 AM)
     Message ID #327063

This message is in response to T Cavanagh ( message id #327061 )  View All Related Messages

You ignore the obvious because you don't like what you read. The very fact that the mainstream media polices itself disproves what you say.

9. T Cavanagh CEOExpressSelect Member
     (3/2/2019 8:41:02 AM)
     Message ID #327064

This message is in response to D Robb ( message id #327063 )  View All Related Messages

Try to see and think beyond your very small world view.

I would hardly call that "policing" itself when it's all about the revenue stream. You just can't see what has happened right in front of you.

10. T Cavanagh CEOExpressSelect Member
     (3/2/2019 8:47:22 AM)
     Message ID #327065

This message is in response to Bo Noles ( message id #327062 )  View All Related Messages

Seems a bit far fetched Bo, people in Government are not the brightest and best to keep that covered up for 60 years, that is for sure

One cannot ignore the market forces in place caused by the internet, traditional newsprint, broadcast news has gone the same way as Blockbuster Video, replaced by a new business model, you click, advertisers pay.

Classic case of "who moved my cheese"
  1-10 of 3397 11-20 >>  Last >