MERGED: Irresponsible Media

[giddyboy]

---

asa ni? wa lage ko kakita ani? tagae ko link basa ko. i tot because of poverty jud to xa.

no my dear...it was all over the news nga na-rape ang bata after exhumation and autopsy...

anyways, here is the thread topic for your consumption:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/index....,158348.0.html

[eax]

no my dear...it was all over the news nga na-rape ang bata after exhumation and autopsy...

anyways, here is the thread topic for your consumption:

https://www.istorya.net/forums/index....,158348.0.html

Sakto gyud.

Ang news report na ang bata gi-rape wala gi frontpage. Murag bag one-sided lang sila.

[giddyboy]

Sakto gyud.

Ang news report na ang bata gi-rape wala gi frontpage. Murag bag one-sided lang sila.

of course...ang kad2 mga newspaper nga nag frontpage sauna nga tungod sa poverty naghikug mauwaw na sab magfrontpage nga sayop diay cla rape diay...

[ronna]

thanks giddyboy

[¿]

wa tay mahemo kay dili ta taga media

[tru^norf]

they are just like your ordinary corrupt, incompetent, lazy government or private employees with one difference, they work for the media.
save for the competent and decent ones.

[Empress_Of_Drac]

commercialization can be allowed in certain areas and certain commodities. but as it appears now, we are experiencing the adverse effects of how me commercialize the mass media. we know that how the media works, from the way it shapes our tastes and opinions, to how we construe contemporary social realities, and how we react to them. still, instead of assuming responsibility on the direction to where mass media and news reporting is taking us, we instead give up this responsibility to the profit-oriented companies. in effect, the fate the contemporary culture, the attitudes, and the social outlook of an entire people is placed on the hands of companies who are willing to sacrifice these for the sake of ratings and profit.

that cannot be helped...majority of us are common people who don't have the opportunity to get higher education...people who knows less can be easily influenced by anything...and that includes the media...if you don't know how those people work then you would just believe what you see without further query...just like people who blames the president when there's an oil price increase...blame the authority, that's the easier way to unload responsibilities...

[gareb]

if you don't know how those people work then you would just believe what you see without further query...just like people who blames the president when there's an oil price increase...blame the authority, that's the easier way to unload responsibilities...

further inquiry would require one to sort out the tangled webs of power relations between social and economic classes, business interests, sectors of the society, language of the law, and Gramsci's cultural hegemony in the context of Philippine contemporary culture as expressed by mass media. will the common middle-class intelligensia digest this?

the mere fact that it is called 'authority' means that it has power and is responsible for that which is entrusted to it. an authority who can do nothing is not an authority at all. even by mere semantics such reasoning is already defeated.

majority of us are common people who don't have the opportunity to get higher education...people who knows less can be easily influenced by anything...and that includes the media...

all the more reason that this segment of the population must be protected from the malicious manipulations by the broadcast media prodded by profit.

it's seems curious how we can sometimes advocate for two irreconcilable stands, in this case the 'commercialization of mass media' (which by mentioning our helplessness against it, we by default, approve of) and the 'fairness, equality and responsibility' that mass media should strictly observe.

what seems strange is that we always fail to see that the former, being the root cause of not being able to implement the latter on instances when profit margins are in conflict with public interest, should be addressed and not be given the a shrug of the shoulders and saying that it 'cannot be helped'.

being all too aware which segment of the population can be easily manipulated, i wonder if you have considered why such manipulations happen in the first place, what impetus pushes our kind of media to do the things that it does? isn't it commercialization, higher ratings and profit margins?

and if so, by saying that this aspect of the media 'cannot be helped', what then is the purpose of us shaking our fist at the media's irresponsibility, when we cower at the face of the problem's root?

[Empress_Of_Drac]

that's why the media should be responsible enough given the type of audience they have...

anyways, what solution can you suggest?

[gareb]

that's why the media should be responsible enough given the type of audience they have...

unfortunately they seem to be afflicted with this chronic fits of forgetfullness with regards to their responsibilities when these are in confict with their profit margins; something that happens fairly quite often, especially in a hyper-competition for ratings.

mainstream media outfits, as you know, depend on advertisers for revenues. what the individual advertiser wants can affect the content of the program depending on its target market. to offset this, media outfits do not depend on few advertisers alone but take in as many and as diverse kinds of advertisers as possible so that their content could not beheld hostage by one a single corporate interest, as well as maintain a "sense of equality and fairness" that they are bannering now. in turn, they produce the kind of programs that attract these kinds of advertisers with the ratings that their programs are taking in.

what this creates is a downward spiral, a vicious cyle of escapism and stagnation; the latter being the product of the former as the kind of programs that sell are those that create fantastical worlds of indecipherable drama. mainstream media likes to play safe with its programs by using tried-and-tested formulas that rake in sure bucks, granting very narrow avenues (and budgets) to more worthwhile and substantial programs. even its news bureaus are tailored to spot sensationalism but fail to articulate on significant points what these events actually mean.

in their attempts to break free from the clutches of advertisers' interests, they drive themselves even deeper inside a quagmire of irresponsibility as they ultimately cannot escape their own urge for higher profit margins. and while they highlight their supposed public service in those times when profit does not come in conflict with the former, their efforts at downplaying instances when they favor profit over public service when these happen to come in conflict with each other, are too glaring in the public eye not to be seen as sheer hipocrisy.

instead of shaping new soultions to perrenial social problems that we face, being the fora for discussion and/or exposition of ideas, mainstream media instead becomes the gatekeeper of what ideas can and cannot be allowed to proliferate. it dictates everything from the most mundane like your everyday fashion sense, to the sublime thoughts and social outlook of each individual. instead of showing reality, it choses those points that it favors about it,both good and bad, and inflates them into new twisted dimensions.

anyways, what solution can you suggest?

a truly independent media. a media that is radically different from that which we now have. there should be a revamp on the basics of power play that goes inside mainstream media and its conduit sector, the advertising industry.

but most of all, the profit initiative of the media should be supressed and relagated into anything but the primary position. program content must not be dictated by ratings but by merit of the content itself. and open discussion for these programs and their contents should not only be acknowledged but insitutionalized.

granted that media will always have its own share of biases, personal (reporters, crew, etc.) or institutional (outfits, administration, organization, etc.), checks and balances should be crafted to ensure that the kinds of biases that can be allowed would only be those that are in favor of the people.

what should always be remembered though is that the media is only one instituion among many that functions inside a society; in itself it cannot do much. the implications of a radical shift inside the media industry can reverbrate into social, economic and cultural spheres, as much as the current context of these spheres can affect and is affecting how the media functions.