So, what happened to public service? If the "news" media has moved into a new area of profit motive. Isn't that completly undermining the idea of "news." Seems like "infotainment" to me. Where does the truth start and enterntainment end? And when I say, "new" I mean in the sense of the last 50 years. A gradual shift from wellfare state democracy to a more capitalistc democracy. And bamaslammer. I wasn't trying to broad brush. Just trying to figure out why some people belive that Fox is 100% correct. They do exist. I work with some of them. And what's crazier; is they put a religious spin on it.
I think there is too much of Moore in the film for it to be considered a documentary. I don't begrudge Moore his money-making ambition; I might even pay my way into seeing it someday. I will certaintly rent it. This is Rush's niche; he gets lambasted by the left while Moore gets lionized by those same people. They both nudge the facts to comport with their preferred version of reality. It's highly entertaining and somewhat educational.
Honestly, I don't know what to say to someone like that other than something like this: "No it's not..." There are lots of things that could be costrued to be a God-given right that laws and/or society have removed. They will just have to get over it if the predominant feeling is that they will just have to get over it.
What about a film that exposes someone's dishonesty? Does that make it a biased view? Less true? I mean, we can forget political parties for that matter. Because, when you get to the heart of the issue. It really comes down to the individual and how far they are willing to to go, to get what they want. And yes. I see this in the democrats as well.
Actually, I think they are both nuts. I agree with Moore probably more than I do with Rush, but I think they still are blowhards. I agree that it maybe isn't a "documentary" in the sense that it isn't strictly presenting a story so much as it is presenting a point of view. But, that is probably the only category we currently have for it.
Well, therein lies the problem. The news has always been about balance, but that balance was thrown completely out of whack with the explosion of information technology. People stopped watching news at 6 and 10 because there were about 100 other things to choose from. Why the hell would I watch the local news when I can see a Seinfeld or Simpsons re-run or Sportscenter or a movie or whatever? So, in order to justify their existence, news programming had to sensationalize. Newspapers are getting killed by the internet. Any nut job can post a blog and have people believe him and legit news sources, right or wrong, have to compete with the wackos...cough...Drudge...cough. So, what do you do to increase circulation and keep ad rates steady? You increase the size of ad supplements, sports, entertainment, features, etc, and relegate news to a couple sections with fluff pieces on the front page and wire stories 10 pages in. The reality is that there are so many options, people just don't care about watching the news or reading the paper like they used to. If it isn't on demand, it isn't worth paying attention to. I mean, look at this freakin' BBS! Do you go to ESPN or CNN/SI or CBS Sportsline or the Houston Chronicle to get Rockets news? Hell no. This is their competition and, as much as it is great for instant access to news, it sucks for journalists who are constantly forced into glamorizing things that are mostly fact-based and dull.
To a degree. But, when you get death threats because someone got banned from the BBS and think you are to blame even though you had NOTHING to do with it, you might see it a little differently (actually happened). I do think the community aspect is very important, but I don't think it is a particularly good way to disseminate news because it often works like the pass-it-on game where someone says something, passes it around 20 people in a circle and it ends up completely different on the other end. We see that here on this BBS all the time when a rumor from another bulletin board suddenly turns into a legit possibility. For news, you need the legal and ethical boundries that real news organizations help to create. Well, most of the time.
Not for news, per say. I meant for discussion and ideas. My cup of tea! News tidbits still come in to the BBS. But mostly from conventional news sources; AP, Reuters, BBC, CNN, etc...then we "discuss" them (some argue).
