Should the media actively manipulate opinion?
 

I don't mean to beat a dead horse, but I got to thinking, and of course for me, the events that spring to mind are those occuring most recently, with the news the the President had expanded the powers of the NSA being held back until it would have the maximum effect on the Patriot Act renewal, or the infamous "letter" regarding George Bush's National Guard service. There have been actions such as this both against the Right and the Left in the past, W.R. Hearst was not hesitant at all in his papers reflecting his opinions, but he has been worm food for a long time.

Should the media actively try to manipulate public opinion?

Please, have a cup of coffee and discuss

I thought they already did...

they're in business to make money. Telling their readers what they want sells papers etc.

Should the government manipulate the media to shape public opinion?

That is a given to me, though some would disagree. It sort of pisses me off that they do, and am surprised it does not do so more to others, judging from the tepid discussion. I would have expected there to be much more response, particularly with how heated it got when the subject was the US putting true articles in an Iraqui paper that were positive. Oh well, I suppose who makes the call on it is more important than whether it is true or not

Clearly this happens as well, and always will to varying degree, should they? How about in a specific situation. If news of an interruption in heating oil supply gets out, the price will rise precipitously, resulting in the death from freezing of 10,000 black babies made homeless by the Federal Governments response to Hurricane Katrina. Should the story be suppressed?

I think I want that as my avatar, was the freezing black babies too over the top?

Should the media manipulate the government and country to shape public opinion?...At least the officials can be voted out of office, the media is unaccountable.

There is no monolithic "media agenda".

The media is owned by a variety of different companies. There is wide wariety of different media viewpoints, from far-right talk radio to staunchly conservative blogs to mainstream ratings-obsessed TV networks to bland weekly news-magazines to investigative newspapers to ideological "issue" magazines and so on. On any given issue, you'll see different treatment from different media outlets.

There are only three givens.

First, the media tends to focus on whatever most fascinates the public at the moment.

Second, TV tends to have the most superficial stories.

Three, show me someone who's complaining loudest about media bias, and I'll show you someone who senses his side is losing. The Democrats whined loudly when the media talks about Clinton bonking an intern, and the Republicans are whining loudly when the media talks about Bush bonking . . . well, take your pick.

How is this any different than corporations and associations with "media relations departments" pitching news to newspapers?

So true.

That's great thanks for posting.

And they more frequently than not focus on what supports their agenda. By a simple manipulation, intentional or subconscious, they skew the news towards their world wiew. This was demonstrated when the establishment (predominantly democrat) media used selective excerpts of the corrupted 9-11 Comission's interim report to falsely lead the public to believe that Saddam had no connection to Al qaeda. This was demonstrated by Mary Mapes defending to this day forged documents regarding Bush's guard service. This is demonstrated by the media/dnc barrage of negative imagery and rhetoric regarding the unmitigated success of our war on international terrorism.

We do have a monolithic media. They have veritable full control of what gets coverage and what does not. They are not only news reporters, but they are most alarmingly news "makers".

The media does manipulate opinion. My question is why does Sean Hannity want me to buy:

Elizabeth Grady products;

Sleepnumber beds; and

Timeshares among other gewgaws and Ronco-inspired stuff.

"Friends, Sean Hannity here and I've got to tell you about this..." and then he goes on and on about it like Consumer Reports would.

While I appreciate his heartfelt desire to help me in all my purchasing needs, what's in it for him?

"We do have a monolithic media."

So all the overwhelmingly conservative-slanted talk radio programming, all the conservative bloggers that you cite, and the conservative and highly popular cable news channel Fox News, they don't exist?

And if I watch a program on conservative-loved Fox and then listen to a program on conservative-hated NPR, on the same issue, I will hear the same thing?

And the editorial page of the supposedly-conservative Wall Street Journal and the editorial page of the supposedly-liberal New York Times also express the same views?

Some monolith.

Why does Fox News dedicate more airtime to that dead blonde girl in Aruba than it does to covering successes by our troops in Iraq?

Because tax dollars pay for democracy, not PR for the incumbent.

I'm with John L - I think he put the point across very well.

To the extent that the media is unintentionally biased (ie, due to the sum of the inherent human bias in reporters), and that bias is as controlled as possible, I am relaxed...

In fact, a light's just gone on in my head (rare). Lets look at it the other way. Mul, Fint, aways, etc - all you guys complaining about the so-called left wing media.

Whose fault is it? Why is it bad? What non-capitalist pressure is causing this aberation that you see. The media globally - and certainly in the US - is primarily a function of capitalism. Few companies have an overt and deliberate bias - unfortunately Fox is one of them. Some may have a left wing bias, but that is a function of the editors and reporters/journalists and the demographic of the readers/listeners/watchers.

This is all occuring in a free market. IMO, you have no cause for complaint.

Why does Fox News dedicate more airtime to that dead blonde girl in Aruba than it does to covering successes by our troops in Iraq?

While Mul, Joe, and len are trying to figure this out I'm sure the troops appreciate the rights distorted priorities.

Speaking of distorted, hows the Democratic platform doing? You guys got a leader yet 'cause Howard Dean is not long for the wacko ward.

Please go back to watching CBS and your fan club...

Joe A

Holy deflection Batman! Let's stay on topic: media and should it actively manipulate opinion.

Joe, if you can't stay on topic and have to resort to troll baiting, there's plenty of other "bash liberals and Democrats" websites out there for you to get your jollies.

I asked this question I think last Friday. It's certainly an interesting question. If capitalism causes the most valuable and most desired products and services to come to market, then why would the supposedly VAST MAJORITY of Americans need to remain disappointed with al major media sources? You say conservatives are the majority of Americans and that the media (lots of money in that industry, capitalism should work perfectly there) is disgustingly liberal.

Teach me economics. Where is Cowtown?