What value does the media add to society ?

[anonymous-user]

I no longer watch BBC or Sky News and will shortly stop reading the press online. Have come to the conclusion that whilst I welcome a free press in general they are currently adding nothing to society. Scare story after scare story most of it is a bunch of half truths if not outright lies. They helped cause the fuel shortage and are now trying to stir up panic buying ahead of Xmas. To me they seem like they are hostile to the U.K. they are not adding anything to society just trying to make peoples lives a misery. Always historically had respect for journalists but now wouldn’t give any of them the time of day

[simoid]

Good journalists are good, clickbaiters are bad but I suppose they wouldn’t exist if we didn’t click on those articles, and didn’t generate ad revenue… so it’s our own fault, really.

[rodericb]

It's an industry and industries evolve, usually encompassing an expansion remit, and coming up with more and more ideas to generate revenue. I think the news bit of the media industry has found that it's more lucrative to propagandize to a smaller but more certain customer base. They've always been this way to an extent but they're now much more easy to access and they themselves have far greater access to information to relay to their consumers.

[HarryW]

In a direct answer to the thread title I’d say near zero.

[irc]

The media tells us when our ruling class are taking the pish.

https://www.thesun.co.uk/news/10912794/derek-macka...

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/5462150/coro...

https://www.thescottishsun.co.uk/news/7166900/scot...

https://www.dailyrecord.co.uk/news/scottish-news/s...

[jeff666]

The Media's job is to report the news not make it.

[Eric Mc]

Everything.

[robscot]

When was the last time anyone paid for what they would consider 'proper' journalism, and what was it in what context?

[boyse7en]

robscot said:

When was the last time anyone paid for what they would consider 'proper' journalism, and what was it in what context?

This is the problem. Everyone has become used to accessing "free" news, but proper journalists cost money and time to investigate stories.
To make it a viable business, journalism now has to be cheap and quick and generate rapid click through traffic, so it is no wonder that standards are not as high as they were.
But even in its current sorry state, the media's presence mean that the government and institutions are still liable to be held to account and therefore curb their worst excesses (or at least have to make an effort to hide them)

[irc]

robscot said:

When was the last time anyone paid for what they would consider 'proper' journalism, and what was it in what context?

I have online subs for the Spectator and Telegraph. So I pay for journalism every month as well as reading some news sites without subscribing and buying papers, often The Times, at the shops.

Proper journalism? Well if you want Watergate every day you will be disappointed. There is plenty interesting stories published though.

The current online front page iof the Telegraph has stories on, Met corruption, a Brexit dispute between the courts and House of Lords, the Northern Ireland EU border, electricity shortages, and many more.

https://www.telegraph.co.uk/

What proper journalism are you looking for?

[Murph7355]

rodericb said:

It's an industry and industries evolve, usually encompassing an expansion remit, and coming up with more and more ideas to generate revenue. I think the news bit of the media industry has found that it's more lucrative to propagandize to a smaller but more certain customer base. They've always been this way to an extent but they're now much more easy to access and they themselves have far greater access to information to relay to their consumers.

The whistle-blower at Facebook was on the money IMO. Most traditional media are following in social media's wake.

[Mr Tidy]

jeff666 said:

The Media's job is to report the news not make it.

That seems to be where it has gone wrong - media seem to want to make some news when there isn't much to report.

So as a result we all spent a couple of weeks queueing for fuel.

[rodericb]

Murph7355 said:

rodericb said:

It's an industry and industries evolve, usually encompassing an expansion remit, and coming up with more and more ideas to generate revenue. I think the news bit of the media industry has found that it's more lucrative to propagandize to a smaller but more certain customer base. They've always been this way to an extent but they're now much more easy to access and they themselves have far greater access to information to relay to their consumers.

The whistle-blower at Facebook was on the money IMO. Most traditional media are following in social media's wake.

And she is a shill for social media!

[Dagnir]

In one way or another, it dictates huge swathes of our culture.

[Cold]

robscot said:

When was the last time anyone paid for what they would consider 'proper' journalism, and what was it in what context?

Are you including the TV licence in this question?

[roger.mellie]

cc3 said:

I no longer watch BBC or Sky News and will shortly stop reading the press online. Have come to the conclusion that whilst I welcome a free press in general they are currently adding nothing to society. Scare story after scare story most of it is a bunch of half truths if not outright lies. They helped cause the fuel shortage and are now trying to stir up panic buying ahead of Xmas. To me they seem like they are hostile to the U.K. they are not adding anything to society just trying to make peoples lives a misery. Always historically had respect for journalists but now wouldn’t give any of them the time of day

The value of the media is not in your or my consumption. It’s in whether you think it’s fair and capable of asking questions to power without having it’s heels cooled. TBH I don’t think we’re in a good place that way. Current leader is a headline a report journalist and hates the scrutiny. I think it would be much better for democracy if the likes of yourself questioned that rather than trying to pretend journalists should keep their mouths shut.

[JagLover]

cc3 said:

I no longer watch BBC or Sky News and will shortly stop reading the press online. Have come to the conclusion that whilst I welcome a free press in general they are currently adding nothing to society. Scare story after scare story most of it is a bunch of half truths if not outright lies. They helped cause the fuel shortage and are now trying to stir up panic buying ahead of Xmas. To me they seem like they are hostile to the U.K. they are not adding anything to society just trying to make peoples lives a misery. Always historically had respect for journalists but now wouldn’t give any of them the time of day

The important thing to realise is they are not doing this wantonly, or just for the sake of it. The MSM has been hit hard by the rise of the internet so they are even more reliant on their owners and advertisers for money. It is natural therefore for them to almost exclusively serve wealth and power and the mistake would be to think they will ever offer the "truth" if it does not suit those they serve.

This can be seen in the current orchestrated campaigns as the money men want the same access to a vast pool of cheap labour they did prior to the end of FOM. In other words we are currently in a time of flux and so the MSM are worse than ever as they have to force the agenda on behalf of those they serve.

So the MSM can still have value, particularly when reporting on areas which do not affect their true masters, but never trust them, and also never trust supposed "ideological leanings", that is more for market positioning. They are campaigners on behalf of wealth and power with few convictions of their own.

Edited by JagLover on Sunday 10th October 06:20

[roger.mellie]

JagLover said:

cc3 said:

I no longer watch BBC or Sky News and will shortly stop reading the press online. Have come to the conclusion that whilst I welcome a free press in general they are currently adding nothing to society. Scare story after scare story most of it is a bunch of half truths if not outright lies. They helped cause the fuel shortage and are now trying to stir up panic buying ahead of Xmas. To me they seem like they are hostile to the U.K. they are not adding anything to society just trying to make peoples lives a misery. Always historically had respect for journalists but now wouldn’t give any of them the time of day

The important thing to realise is they are not doing this wantonly, or just for the sake of it. The MSM has been hit hard by the rise of the internet so they are even more reliant on their owners and advertisers for money. It is natural therefore for them to almost exclusively serve wealth and power and the mistake would be to think they will ever offer the "truth" if it does not suit those they serve.

This can be seen in the current orchestrated campaigns as the money men want the same access to a vast pool of cheap labour they did prior to the end of FOM. In other words we are currently in a time of flux and so the MSM are worse than ever as they have to force the agenda on behalf of those they serve.

So the MSM can still have value, particularly when reporting on areas which do not affect their true masters, but never trust them, and also never trust supposed "ideological leanings", that is more for market positioning. They are campaigners on behalf of wealth and power with few convictions of their own.

Edited by JagLover on Sunday 10th October 06:20

Good post and different to mine but I suspect we’re calling on deaf ears that just want validation.

[Fast and Spurious]

Typical bolleaux from the BBC ust wanting to stir st up...

[roger.mellie]

Fast and Spurious said:

Typical bolleaux from the BBC ust wanting to stir st up...

TBH, my first reaction to that was typical bks from a bbc hater. Irrelevant to this thread too.

Is media relevant? Regardless of your preferred bias? Not sure you’ve any intent of arguing the point.