Media Watch
 

In Australia we have a weekly program called "Media Watch" on the ABC, the government funded national television network.

Just wondering if the USA has a similar show taking a critical view of the worst excesses of the mainstream media?

Watch the latest episode here

Fascinating viewing.

very interesting stuff....may have to give that a frequent watch.

A lot of BBC reports used, I see.

Media Watch hahahaha :thumbsup

I'm always amazed by the people they cut down on that program. I've never seen a better case of 'biting that hand that feeds you' than this. They go after anyone. Always thought provoking.

As Joe said, 100% funded by the Australian Govenment.

I'm not sure if there is a program like that.

In the US, the media is quite introspective. They talk and write excessively about themselves and the various media outlets critique each other to no end.

You'd have a pretty difficult time pegging the "US media". Some people outside of the US seem to think that CNN is the be all and end all of US news but it's not even the most popular cable news network in the United States.

We're probably the most news-inundated society in the history of the world. The market supports three major cable news networks in addition to an endless stream of news magazines and newspapers with every slant imaginable. Some very conservative. Some very liberal. Some are very critical of the current administration and some are the opposite.

So there's nobody independent keeping an eye on all of them?

What do you mean by "independent"?

According to the "Media Watch" website, the show is hosted by David Marr, "one of Australia's finest journalists". He also writes for the "Sydney Morning Herald".

Yes, we have journalists "keeping an eye" on other journalists in the US.

The difference is that nothing is sacred to Media Watch... even the network that broadcasts them is fair game. Or didn't you watch the whole show?

Can journalists in the USA bite the hand that feeds them without fear of repercussions?

You started by asking whether there was anyone "independent keeping an eye on all of them".

Now that it's suddenly obvious to you that journalist David Marr is not really any more independent than any other journalist, you wish to change your argument to whether there is anything so "sacred" to american news media that they wouldn't publish it?

The answer is obvious. Monica Lewinsky was on the front page of the Washington Post. Iran-Contra was on the front page of the Miami Herald. The New York Times printed "The Pentagon Papers".

Interesting note. The government sued the New York Times to stop publication of the "Pentagon Papers" but lost.

No one's stopping the New York Times, the National Enquirer, Michael Moore, Rush Limbaugh, or any number of other assorted nuts from saying exactly what they want to say and reporting exactly what they want to report. Though, many wished they could. Instead, they change the channel, the radio dial, or read something else instead.

Are you sure you've REALLY visited the US, Joe? Your misunderstandings of the US are glaring.

These are not soley funded by govenment. Is NPR funded soley by the US govt? If so, do they ever report alternative views on the governments public relations? I havent tuned in for ages, but I'm pretty sure they do.. :2 cents:

Are you so naive that you think corporate media is looking out for your best interest?

In Canada we have...

Counterspin
http://www.counterspin.tv/

and Inside Media
http://www.cbc.ca/insidemedia/

Are you saying that government funded news media will give better coverage of the government than independent news media?

What is independant? When you are motivated by selling copies of your publication or gaining audience share, its hard to stay independant. Not mention presidential donations.

http://www.mediachannel.org/atissue/...cs/front.shtml

Id like to see you come up with a definition of this.

:1orglaugh

Got me there. :-)

I'll change to:

Are you saying that government funded news media will give better coverage of the government than corporate news media?

This doesn't at all mean that news media will publish the news that people "want to hear" though. People love a train wreck. Watergate, Monica Lewinsky, the Pentagon Papers.

This sells newspapers. This gets coverage.

The biggest news stories are just as often the ones that make the government look bad, that make government officials look bad, and that make an administration look bad.

The sheer number of news media sources guarantees that there is always someone just waiting to print the story and get their big break. Do you think if "a senior pentagon official" showed a New York Times reporter tomorrow that Bush sold weapons to Iraq in 2002 that it wouldn't be on the front page of the New York Times tomorrow?

A few weeks ago the cable news stations got stuck for a week straight on whether the "military plan was on target" because someone said it wasn't. Another three straight days covered whether Rumsfeld had bullied his "faster, lighter" view of the forces into the plan against Frank's wishes. This was based on an "unnamed pentagon source". Another week was dominated by "Did the military plan not properly account for the feyadeen"? because one field commander's comments had been misunderstood by a reporter [in his own words].

It takes absolutely nothing at all to create a wave of negative publicity regarding any administration, action, or otherwise. No amount of Pentagon or White House influence was stopping what seemed to me to be short bouts of insanity.

Yes, people can influence some aspects of the media. No one can influence all of it. No one has control.

That depends on the government.

in Canada, our public media is highly critical of the gov't. But not as much as the private media who have interests in their own POLITICAL PARTIES.

as soon as private media becomes entrenched with politics, the entire nature of media changes and it is no longer news but one long editorial.

MrPopup,

You make some good points. It hadn't occured to me before that someone might actually consider news media owned by the government to be good. Interesting.

Is that only because you dont trust your govt to leave a media source they 'control' uncensored?

at one point you i would have agreed with you.

modern media convergence and the sheer volume of corporate influence means news is no longer fact but simply a product.

Tonight on Larry King Live: The same content we print in People magazine and CNN.com promoting our own shows and our own content.

after all, about 5-8 companies own ALL major media in north america.

No, because I can see the benefit of having a still wider range of media sources with a further spreading of influences and points of view.

Well, I don't drop my original premise. I add yours to it. ;-)

has nothing to do with trust, but sheer business logic..

news = ratings = money.

the question then becomes "how can we fix the news to make more money?"

No one is mentioning the good side of "corporate news" though. Competition. Competition between news sources and between journalists themselves
ensures publishing of a wide-range of news stories.

The same forces which drive capital markets drive capital news.

That would make us 'Sheep' and 'Conformists'.


JoeSixpack, after all of your FreeThinker rhetoric the past few months, you really have the gall to boast about a media outlet that is 100% government funded?! Does this not go against your stance on what makes one a conformist or sheep?

I love media watch. Definitley gives you a different perspective on many issues that seem very obvious at a quick glance. Very thought provoking.

You're a fool. You obviously didn't go to the link that Joe posted. I'm a big fan of Media watch, and they're forever pointing out flaws in the media and the government, including the station that airs media watch. Nothing is sacred.

But, by JoeSixpacks past arguments, the 'flaws' they are pointing out would simply be what they(the government) would want us to hear. Maybe you should try to comprehend the point I was trying to make?? The fact that this show takes stances and positions that he or you would agree with, changes nothing about my point.

You don't get it. The government funds it. The government does not have a say in the content of the show. That's the entire point of the show. There is no conspiracy here. The fact of the matter is, the Australian government doesn't have very many scandals worth even trying to cover up. I think we're all too laid back over here.

How do you know they don't have anything to do with the content? Because they tell you? Hmmm... conformist.. sheep, both come to mind.

You haven't even seen the show. You're ignorant. At least i've formed my opinion having actually watched the show. Can you say the same? No.

The actual content of the show has nothing to do with my point.

Hahahaha.

Why is that so funny? Did I ever say that the content was my point? You are the ignorant one, here, sir.

You're a joke. That's what's funny. Of course the content was your point. If the content of the show was irrelevant, why would it even be an issue that the government was funding the station that presented the show? Quite simply, it wouldn't be.

Probably one of the main reasons that Media Watch is allowed to do what it does, is that as the name suggests, it watches the media. The government comes into it now and then, but the main objective is to anaylse and criticise the media. If the government happens to get caught in the cross fire, so be it. There have been many a red face in parliament the following day after Media Watch, on more than one occassion.

This is my point, and it was directed at JoeSixpack and not you anyways. He knows what his stances have been in the past months... maybe he'll understand what I'm saying... you obviously do not.

Seriously, how is it sheepish to get your information from as many sources, and as many perspectives as possible? You're an idiot.

Damn, you are dense. *see that is how you convey a point without name calling* Good night. I'll reply to JoeSixpack in the morning if he chooses to respond to my post.

The government in power has absolutely no control over network content. It is government (rather TAXPAYER) funded and it is probably the single best television network in the country.

You'd only have a point if the government had any control over the network in terms of content. It doesn't, so you don't.

Fox has something called "Fox news watch". As everybody knows Fox is fair and balanced.