"News" is not a public service; it is a for-profit business.

[Curtis2011]

I saw another topic posted recently in here that seemed to complain about news not being trustworthy. The reality is that, unlike what most people think, "news" is not a public service provided for the education of the masses. It is a business model similar to a reality tv show.

The business model goes like this:

1. Show something that catches people's attention.

2. Sell advertising space, which happens to be worth more if more people are watching.

3. Profit.

The only difference between the news and a television show is that the events in the news actually happened in real life. But even then, news broadcasters are usually biased one way or another.

Here is a startling (or not) reality shock, where a florida judge ruled that it is legal for news corporations to deliberately lie.

[Angela]

I understand that a huge chunk of what is presented is "news" is really video press releases -- professionally produced "commercials" disguised as current events. Ick!

[Vanessa]

News was never meant to be public service or serving the public's best interest.

It is an entire industry based on commercialization of attention.

For best interest, we have PSAs that are subsidized through someone else's commercial efforts. How can we really trust those intentions either is the question.

This is a hot topic for me, I'm writing a book on the rise of the individual news business and shift away from the dying news media model.

Still the same industry though -- attention and reach are assets -- with new players, new technology and a lower barrier of entry.

[Captain Drywall]

originally television was set up to be for the public good, news was not for profit, in fact it lost money. a tv station could lose its license if it didnt do enought public service messages. But then , when the government pays for a dam we still get charged for the power it produces , no wonder i am such a commie. I just dont believe there has to be such profit in everything.

[Vanessa]

Most new technologies are initially money losers because of the cost of innovation.

For television, the idea is broadcasting one signal to many was worth the initial loss to gain public acceptance and overtake the radio glory days.

Initially, the internet was not supposed to be for commercial uses either, just military and academic use.

The payout comes with mass acceptance of a distribution technology like TV, radio or internet.

Feel bad for the models that didn't make it, like betamax or the idea that if you pay for cable you don't have to have commercials on shows.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Vanessa

This is a hot topic for me, I'm writing a book on the rise of the individual news business and shift away from the dying news media model.

True that.

One thing that is potentially beneficial about the internet rising into power is that news corporations that traditionally had a monopoly or oligopoly (look that up! ) on the mediums, such as radio and television, are now going to be in direct competition with tons of smaller news sources that are 100% virtual.

If there's one thing I've learned from economics, it's that more competition in an industry almost always produces better products (in this case, "news") for the customers.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

I saw another topic posted recently in here that seemed to complain about news not being trustworthy. The reality is that, unlike what most people think, "news" is not a public service provided for the education of the masses.....]

You and I own the airwaves.... This is the reason that news, as Captain Drywall points out, was once regulated, and could be again if corporations didn't own too many American politicians. The FCC is charged with insuring that the "public" airwaves show only what's appropriate....

The same media that yells and screams about how we are losing our freedoms is at the same time happily internalizing the rewards and profits of using the public airwaves to dupe the public!

Is this what you want? Just because it has happened doesn't mean you have to allow it to continue.

The FCC issues licenses and

coordinates telecommunications policy efforts with industry and with other governmental agencies — federal, tribal, state and local — in serving the public interest.

In exchange for those licenses, they used to require some period of time each day that was for truth, rather than profit.

Isn't it in the interest of a democracy to have some period of truth available each day.

If all the media is free to tell whatever lies they chose to tell, how can the public ever know who to vote for?

I am not ready to give it up to the corporations just yet. I would like to see the American public make some demands in exchange for using the airwaves and in exchange for having their vote as they have done in Europe.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

...
If there's one thing I've learned from economics, it's that more competition in an industry almost always produces better products (in this case, "news") for the customers.

There are laws to allow competition and to give a fighting chance to the little guy. Are you writing to your Congressmen and Senators to enforce the anti-trust laws?

Since we're talking about the media, the ownership of media outlets (tv stations, radio stations, newspapers and magazines) used to be regulated so that there could not be a concentration if a few hands. In Italy, one man just bought up most of the outlets and then tried to get himself elected "God".

In the US, there were hundreds of owners of TV stations, with many local owners. Now, there are 7 corporate owners I believe. Perhaps Vanessa knows more about that.

The internet is, right now, free. But, now that corps can put unlimited funds into politicians' reelection efforts, how long do you think the FCC (the only control we have) is going to protect the freedom of the internet?

Bectel owns all the water rights in Iraq.

As Steve Pavlina says, "I am here to wake you up."

[aggie]

you are so right strem2!

and on top of all that you have radio and tv shows with the likes of beck and limbaugh, where although they are not touted as "news" handle their programs like they have the definitive answer on national and world affairs and some people buy into all that and their commentary as gospel!

i don't know if anyone has ever listened to randi rhodes...but she ALWAYS checks her facts, had lawyers help her decipher the propsed healthcare bills, and will not let even a caller make a statement as though it were truth unless they or she researches it first!

one small step for maintaining some integrity as to what goes out there.

[Curtis2011]

Originally Posted by Strem2

In the US, there were hundreds of owners of TV stations, with many local owners. Now, there are 7 corporate owners I believe. Perhaps Vanessa knows more about that.

Just to share some of the responsibility around and not blame this all on "our enemy, the corporations", we also have to realize that in most cases, the big corporations were only able to take over the small ones because the owners of the small ones sold them out for money.

So, the blame could equally be given to the owners and investors of the small businesses and startups that allowed themselves to be bought out.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Curtis2011

Just to share some of the responsibility around and not blame this all on "our enemy, the corporations", we also have to realize that in most cases, the big corporations were only able to take over the small ones because the owners of the small ones sold them out for money.

So, the blame could equally be given to the owners and investors of the small businesses and startups that allowed themselves to be bought out.

Huhh?

If the regulations prevent big owners who already own as many as legally permitted from buying the small stations, then a small buyer will show up, right?

There is no enemy, but as you said, competition produces the best result for the community. And, laws protect the communities interest -- competition.

The corporations interest is in profit which is best served by monopolization. They are not the enemy, but it is our responsibility, for the sake of competition.

As you said,

If there's one thing I've learned from economics, it's that more competition in an industry almost always produces better products (in this case, "news") for the customers.

Don't give up. Don't let them run over you. You know what is best.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by aggie

you are so right strem2!

...
i don't know if anyone has ever listened to randi rhodes...but she ALWAYS checks her facts, had lawyers help her decipher the propsed healthcare bills, and will not let even a caller make a statement as though it were truth unless they or she researches it first!

one small step for maintaining some integrity as to what goes out there.

I love Randi Rhodes! Yes, she always cites her sources if asked and posts them on the website.

[DaveM]

The most reliable news sources are those that try to appeal to the general public and not just one segment of it. They try to appear balanced and not to offend viewers.

If your just targeting conservatives you focus on info that makes them look better, makes liberals look worse and that your audience wants. You omit or downplay stuff that your audience doesn't want to see. If your appealing liberals and conservatives you really can't do that.

[aggie]

being balanced doesn't necessarily mean someone won't be offended

seriously if you get the truth of the news and some of it is offensive because that is what really is happening....then the news is doing its job!

it ain't all pretty and sugar coating does no one any favors...we need to see all the warts on all the sides and everything in between.

the kindest thing for all is to be told the truth, not omitting or misleading or swaying or revising....that is the only way we can stay informed and make educated decisions!

[Brutha]

is a business model similar to a reality tv show.

What does a mindset like that suggest for the quality of your website?
Do you have the same standard that entertaining people is more important than informing them for your own behavior as producer of information products?

Media isn't just what someone else who's a member of "the elite" does. It's also what you do with your website and it's also what I do here as forum moderator.

But so what when acupuncture has the same effects regardless of whether the needles go into the acupuncture points or whether they go in random spots.
It's probably not what your audience is interested in hearing.

After all you are running a for profit business and you learned in economics that it's moral to do the thing that makes money?

I think that's immoral behavior and I do consider it as part of the responsibility of producing media to stay true to a few standards that aren't identical to my own self interest.
Then I'm a European who believes that the public good is important. However even in the US a lot of journalists don't think that their role is simply about making money.

If there's one thing I've learned from economics, it's that more competition in an industry almost always produces better products (in this case, "news") for the customers.

The problem is that "better" can mean more entertaining or it can mean better information.
"Better" can mean more lines of news for fewer time spent with research.

The internet can only provide information that better in the sense of the public good if we actually act in the interest of the public good instead of acting in our own self interest.

At the moment you really do have the problem that more and more news media gets owned by people who with economics degrees who are't interested in the public good but that's not true for all news media at all times.
Fortunately there are also people who don't buy into the doctrine that self interest is a substitute for acting in the interest of the public good.
Supporting projects like Wikileaks is important because Julian isn't simply interested in his own self interest.

Here is a startling (or not) reality shock, where a florida judge ruled that it is legal for news corporations to deliberately lie.

There's a difference between what's legal and what's right. There are strong legal reasons why strong free speech law shouldn't allow someone to sue a newspaper for lying.
The UK has a lot of problems because of it's law where you can sue newspapers about a lot of things.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Brutha

...
I think that's immoral behavior and I do consider it as part of the responsibility of producing media to stay true to a few standards that aren't identical to my own self interest.
Then I'm a European who believes that the public good is important. However even in the US a lot of journalists don't think that their role is simply about making money.
The problem is that "better" can mean more entertaining or it can mean better information....

"Better" in terms of journalism, means finding the important story that affects more people and reporting it accurately, without bias.

[Brutha]

"Better" in terms of journalism, means finding the important story that affects more people and reporting it accurately, without bias.

But that's not the better that gets produced by an efficient market.
The public interest and what the public is interested in are two different things.

[Strem2]

Originally Posted by Brutha

But that's not the better that gets produced by an efficient market.
The public interest and what the public is interested in are two different things.

And, there is my gripe about pretending there is a free "market". This is ridiculous. As you pointed out in your link, there are back room agreements which have nothing to do with "We the People" and all to do with other business interests.

Regarding the public interest and what the public is interested in -- Humans are interested in joy and abundance, right? When things are going well, the public is happy and enjoys entertaining media. However, things have been going worse and worse since the 1960's and the media has not been giving the public the important stories. For example, some parts of US were upset that US transportation vehicles in Iraq did not have armor against the IUD's. -- Only one site told the true story that the guy with the contract couldn't get enough steel from China!!!! Isn't that a National Security issue? Don't you think Americans need to know that we don't have a steel industry any longer?

When the public interest is in competition with the corporate interest, guess which wins?

But, we can take back at least part of the media if we insist that the public interest be served at least in part on the public airwaves. We don't have any lobbyists so we have to lobby for ourselves....

[Brutha]

And, there is my gripe about pretending there is a free "market". This is ridiculous. As you pointed out in your link, there are back room agreements which have nothing to do with "We the People" and all to do with other business interests.

The point I'm making is that a free market (that could grow in the internet as Curtis2011 suggests) doesn't solve the problem by itself.

The Boston Globe paid more than a million to research the sex scandal in the catholic church.
That's not the kind of story that finances itself but that's expensive to research.

For example, some parts of US were upset that US transportation vehicles in Iraq did not have armor against the IUD's. -- Only one site told the true story that the guy with the contract couldn't get enough steel from China!!!!

That's what you believe
There's massive commercial and political reasons to tell a story like that. You have an steel industry that likes to have tariffs to protect itself.
China bashing is also politically very popular. Getting steel is mainly about paying the price that the market demands.

But, we can take back at least part of the media if we insist that the public interest be served at least in part on the public airwaves.

As I wrote above, that's denial of our responsibility.
We're media. We're making our own.

This isn't a matter that's solved with legislation. It's a matter of having moral standards and calling out those people who derivate from them because someone in their economics class taught them that it's moral to be selfish.
It's a matter of actually acting in the public interest yourself.