PDA

View Full Version : is the news fundamentally conservative?



Woebot
31-10-2014, 10:13 PM
the news - because it generates excitement out of threats to and of shifts in the status quo - fundamentally supports the existing formation of society.

because there's no such thing as good news is there? there's only BAD news. and bad news is things which inspire fear.

don't get me wrong - there's something to be said for the established order...

Leo
01-11-2014, 01:04 AM
that's the entire raison d'ętre of tabloid journalism, isn't it? "if it bleeds, it leads".

while i understand your logic and agree, here in the states it's the far-right/tea baggers who are always complaining about "the liberal media bias", what sarah palin et al refer to as the "lame-stream media", as opposed to fox news/brietbart/newsmax, etc. maybe they are more lunatic fringe than conservative, though.

Patrick Swayze
01-11-2014, 02:57 PM
man catches fish is good news

unless you're the fish

droid
05-11-2014, 02:32 PM
Yes. Without question. The propaganda model is the only overarching analysis of media that is consistently proven correct.

News as entertainment etc. is another argument. Media was very different 50/60 years ago.

zhao
05-11-2014, 03:54 PM
when all of news media is owned by 5 super rich people, all of it serves their interests, and those of their class.

Sectionfive
08-11-2014, 02:48 AM
It's not just 'current affairs' news either is its. Much of the lifestyle/entertainment side of media is equally insidious. Ralph Miliband is good on the news side of things

Separately, was watching Stuart Hall on youtube during the week. The show itself was about racism on TV (https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=gy57O9ZMENA). The issues and fact the so much of what's talked about still persists is bad enough but even though they encountered resistance making the show then, it is nearly inconceivable that something like this would be broadcast now. What space there is is occupied by that, I suppose, comedian / Screen Wipe world which tends more towards 'aren't the tea party are terrible lol' - than they kind of deconstruction Hall offers.

Not in a back in my day sort of thing but it is dispiriting to consider what is heralded as great serious TV now when you see some of the, particularly British, TV that was funded and broadcast across almost all stations once upon a time.

Woebot
14-12-2014, 07:32 PM
some interesting thoughts thanks.

having gone from a compulsively "news" addicted state to, in the course of two months, reading no news at all has been a revelation.

there's an insidious assumption of what one should be interested in: politics, interest rates, immigration, the lives of rich and powerful people. it's sickeningly destabilizing isn't it? i just want to cleave to my own reality a bit - my home life with my family, my work, music - and leaven that with a global awareness of inequality and the environment - and, i dunno, is that not enough? does one need to be constantly siphoned shit.

really i wonder how much socialism is normal, ordinary people locked in a bitter psychological struggle with what they're being fed by the news. of course there is an underlying reality to the socialist agenda - and i'm not equipped to substantiate an argument either way - but surely:


http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=HD5tyat_L68.

bruno
14-12-2014, 11:55 PM
i did the same thing and saw my sanity return, it's clear the news has a bias and is a bit too cosy with the hand that feeds it (finance and politics/sources). at the same time some exposure is necessary to understand public issues as seen through the lens of the powerful and not so powerful (family, friends, etc.), you can't be completely out of the loop.

i disagree that the daily barrage/unrest of the news is the source of discontent, most people have very real troubles (poor wages, long commute, etc.) in reality that are reflected poorly in the news, and it's clear to these same people that financial power and connections make your voice heard, which compounds the disconnect and feeling of injustice. the reality is that talent and hard work does not transalate to fulfillment and happiness because there are a number of invisible factors (connections, family name, colour of skin, accent, place of study) which will sort the pyramid in an unfair (to the person making the effort, creation, etc.) way. fringe ideas and events often do not make it into this consensus, and it's good to remember that environmental issues were once considered fringe. so i think there is a very real basis for this discontent.

it's true that at a basic level the building blocks of happiness (family, friendship, love, etc.) are there for all, but it's also true that other factors can and do impede achievement of these things and they are often external, whether through media or directly in the theatre of life.

Leo
15-12-2014, 01:31 AM
one problem here in the states is that cable TV is 97% shit, so the only daily programs worth anything are news and political commentary programs, which then gets you sucked into the news of the day regarding which politician/party is up or down, etc. it's all about "who won the day", which is the worst form of politics and the worse way to run a country.

on one hand, it's interesting but when you step back for a second you realize most of the conflict of the day is just, as we say here, inside baseball (details and drama of interest to those in the weeds but largely irrelevant to anyone outside washington). when i think back about the big cable news stories of 6-8-12 months ago, most of them are now forgotten, never had an impact on any policies, elections or government decisions.

the world of politics has been called "hollywood for ugly people", and most of the cable news shows are the equivalent of TMZ/Gawker-type gossip sites for them. sadly, i remain somewhat addicted.

trza
15-12-2014, 03:32 AM
That is why I get all of my information from twitter.

vimothy
26-01-2015, 03:16 PM
Let's distinguish between instrumental and substantive definitions of conservatism. It's easy to see that the media is instrumentally conservative (they in some sense propagandise and support the status quo), but they are certainly not substantively conservative (the status quo is not substantively conservative but rather is substantively liberal).

craner
26-01-2015, 04:46 PM
It's easy to see that the media is instrumentally conservative (they in some sense propagandise and support the status quo), but they are certainly not substantively conservative (the status quo is not substantively conservative but rather is substantively liberal).

But then it's where you place the emphasis. Socialists would lean toward the former (or insist upon it).

Do you consider yourself to be a conservative, Vimothy?

vimothy
27-01-2015, 10:33 AM
Probably. Although, as your socialists might argue, not necessarily a very conservative one!

craner
27-01-2015, 11:33 AM
Are you a radical conservative? You are clearly no longer libertarian.

vimothy
27-01-2015, 12:06 PM
Conservatism in the current context is somewhat radical, I meant to suggest. "Radical conservatism" might have connotations that I'm not sure I want to sign up for, but I'm definitely no libertarian ...

Mr. Tea
27-01-2015, 12:09 PM
Are you a radical conservative?

Pardon me if I'm being dense here, but isn't this a tautology? (Edit: durr, oxymoron, of course.) Or do you mean "radical" in the sense that Thatcher's neoliberalism was "radical" in '79 with respect to the postwar consensus?

But then the word "radical" itself is a bit of a chameleon. I mean, people talk about "radical Islamists", who aren't "radical" in the traditional sense, but ultra-reactionary. Unless you just take "radical" to mean "extreme" without any connotations of being progressive/left-wing or reactionary/right-wing, but in that case you might as well just say "extreme" as it has less historical baggage.

vimothy
27-01-2015, 12:10 PM
Contradiction, I think you mean.

vimothy
27-01-2015, 12:51 PM
And yes and no. As we were discussing, "conservative" is equivocal, so you can be "conservative" without being "conservative" (and vice versa).

mistersloane
10-02-2015, 06:45 PM
The only logical conclusion to a Conservative government is to switch off, if one hasn't already. I'm old enough to have bene through Thatcher, and I switched off then, and EVEN then, it was too depressing, and too all pervasive, to escape from, even though we tried - with no TV, no papers, and often no electricity.

"really i wonder how much socialism is normal, ordinary people locked in a bitter psychological struggle with what they're being fed by the news. of course there is an underlying reality to the socialist agenda - and i'm not equipped to substantiate an argument either way - but surely"

I think people are perpetually struggling with forces of power. How this is in affect ranges from BG to Benefit Street.

Media is now a symptom - like heroin - not a cause. You'd need to look into Maxwell, the IPC and deeper interests to see how journalism has changed. See also the eradication of unions and the problems the NUJ have had.

sufi
10-02-2015, 08:33 PM
so wtf is with the bbc constantly promoting ukip?

mistersloane
11-02-2015, 06:44 AM
so wtf is with the bbc constantly promoting ukip?

BBC are all accelerationists innit

Leo
11-02-2015, 11:09 PM
probably not the right thread for this but...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9ld1e9CcAAMQeh.png

sufi
12-02-2015, 12:43 PM
BBC are all accelerationists innit
sort of like turbo-cons? :eek:

sufi
12-02-2015, 12:50 PM
probably not the right thread for this but...

https://pbs.twimg.com/media/B9ld1e9CcAAMQeh.png
it's all connected

https://firstlook.org/theintercept/2015/02/10/u-s-media-13-year-old-yemeni-boy-killed-u-s-drone/

vimothy
12-02-2015, 01:50 PM
Perhaps we get a different BBC ...

Woebot
14-02-2015, 06:53 PM
you can't be completely out of the loop.

yes i do agree with this. while i have 100% abandoned my online news habit - no more clicking on the guardian/telegraph(yes...)/bbc/new york times - i now do the news via the radio 4 morning news. it has many analog qualities which in this instance is a good thing.

Woebot
14-02-2015, 06:55 PM
so wtf is with the bbc constantly promoting ukip?

something to talk about. like everyone else they are obsessed with immigration. a non-topic because as every study ever conducted has proved it's a good thing.

comelately
15-02-2015, 08:24 AM
I don't think it's deniable that immigration is beneficial by standard aggregated measurements. Evidence about wage pressures on low pay jobs is definitely more mixed and open to interpretation.

Mr. Tea
15-02-2015, 09:46 AM
I don't think it's deniable that immigration is beneficial by standard aggregated measurements. Evidence about wage pressures on low pay jobs is definitely more mixed and open to interpretation.

Yes, the effects of immigration are obviously not 100% beneficial to 100% of people already living here (including many who are themselves recent immigrants). Specifically, I think the evidence quite firmly supports the argument that immigration is connected to wage depression for those in low-skill/low-wage jobs.

But at the same time, a massively disproportionate amount of coverage is given to a still fairly small group of loud extremists even by the 'impartial' BBC, I don't think that's even quibbleable.

comelately
15-02-2015, 10:02 AM
I don't watch enough BBC to really know. You look at bookie's odds for any EU referendum and they all have it as a close call; whilst this is not an identical topic to immigration, the idea that this is a fringe issue looks suspect to me. I don't think people handwaving and calling it a non-issue is helpful.

vimothy
15-02-2015, 12:28 PM
I don't think that the evidence for immigration is uniformly favourable, or even favourable in general, or even favourable in general simply in economic terms. The best you can say, if you are an ardent open-borders, neoliberal type, is that the evidence is mixed, so that a positive economic effect overall cannot be ruled out.

As for the BBC and UKIP, if "constant promotion" is taken to mean "coverage", then the reason is probably that the party has widespread support among the populace, which is a story in itself, married to the content of the party's beliefs, which are bound to cause a modicum of hysteria among liberal BBC-types.

luka
15-02-2015, 01:34 PM
It's,a discussion which is several times too complicated, nuanced, multi-faceted and delicate for Dissensus

Mr. Tea
15-02-2015, 01:50 PM
I don't watch enough BBC to really know. You look at bookie's odds for any EU referendum and they all have it as a close call; whilst this is not an identical topic to immigration, the idea that this is a fringe issue looks suspect to me. I don't think people handwaving and calling it a non-issue is helpful.

A big part of the problem is that there is a good deal to criticise the EU for from a left-wing perspective, but the British left (such as it is) is seemingly incapable of offering anything other than unqualified support for it. Thus criticising the EU, on whatever criterion, has become the sole prerogative of the right.*

I didn't mean to imply UKIP was a "non-issue", just that they do get an awful lot of coverage in comparison to how many councillors and MPs they actually have. And their party membership was recently overtaken by the Greens, wasn't it?

*Who else read this last year: interview with Alan Sked (http://www.theguardian.com/politics/2014/may/26/ukip-founder-alan-sked-party-become-frankensteins-monster), who founded UKIP as a liberal (!), centrist (!!!) party to protest the anti-democratic tendencies of the EU.

vimothy
15-02-2015, 02:06 PM
"This week’s YouGov results for the Sunday Times are here. Topline voting intention figures are CON 32%, LAB 35%, LDEM 7%, UKIP 15%, GRN 7%." (YouGuv / Sunday Times, 15th February, 2015 (http://ukpollingreport.co.uk/blog/archives/9251).)

That would suggest that UKIP is the third most popular party in the UK, with over twice the support of Lib Dems (and this is not exactly a new finding). So it would be a little weird if the BBC didn't cover them.

trza
15-02-2015, 05:27 PM
The fundamentals are conservative.