Sarah 'Barracuda' Palin and the Piranhas of the Press

[ready4ONE 5,400]

I wouldn't be debating over what has been or what's going to be with Sarah Palin. She's just a device to distract from the current issues facing the administration and the critical information coming out about the former Administration practices. Turn your heads to the real issues instead of the non-issue.

But Palin is fun!

[SuperDuper! 230]

The media replies

Typical feminist elitist attack piece, proving my pint, which is also why I will never be a feminist.

One reason why I pity people like you is that you think what's happening to the media and how they played favorites is ok. It's not ok, but you don't care because for this short time, it feels good to you.

Just like when it feels good to you. Hello pot...............

You're usually post like you're smoking pot.

I don't smoke or drink, sorry.

Not as sorry as we are....

[spookyturtle 9,465]

I wouldn't be debating over what has been or what's going to be with Sarah Palin. She's just a device to distract from the current issues facing the administration and the critical information coming out about the former Administration practices. Turn your heads to the real issues instead of the non-issue.

But Palin is fun!

I wonder if she is fun in the sack too?

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I wouldn't be debating over what has been or what's going to be with Sarah Palin. She's just a device to distract from the current issues facing the administration and the critical information coming out about the former Administration practices. Turn your heads to the real issues instead of the non-issue.

Media bias and their lack of interest in reporting over cheerleading and obfuscation is my issue; what they did to Palin is merely a blatant example of their failings. That they STILL refuse to do their jobs, in preference of supporting Obama is a real issue not only for our evaluaton of this administration, but for our democracy. This has been going on for decades, but that the public is becoming obtuse to it is a serious issue. You claim to be a media person. If you understand what's at stake, this must concern you, too.

Edited July 12, 2009 by Sofiyya

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I wouldn't be debating over what has been or what's going to be with Sarah Palin. She's just a device to distract from the current issues facing the administration and the critical information coming out about the former Administration practices. Turn your heads to the real issues instead of the non-issue.

Media bias and their lack of interest in reporting over cheerleading and obfuscation is my issue; what they did to Palin is merely a blatant example of their failings. That they STILL refuse to do their jobs, in preference of supporting Obama is a real issue not only for our evaluaton of this administration, but for our democracy. This has been going on for decades, but that the public is becoming obtuse to it is a serious issue. You claim to be a media person. If you understand what's at stake, this must concern you, too.

I could talk volumes on this subject from an eagle eye view point because of my media and politics degree. I also respect that you are highly educated in your area of expertise so I hope that you recognize that this is one subject matter that I can say I do know more about then you do for once. To be fair you should state what media outlets are failing in your opinion instead of generalizing them as a whole. Also I've already spoken on this subject in numerous threads to help redirect misconceptions so I will try to summarize it plainly.

I do agree with you that the general public has become dumb downed to the serious issues which they are partially to blame for. The TV is a follower not a leader. It gives the people what they want and is a slave to their eyeballs because they want those ratings. Palin is a non-issue in the scheme of things. The more prevalent issues at hand currently go all the way to the top of the totem pole and there is no need to waste energy on someone who has barely made a notch in it.

However, where is the attention of the people focused on at the moment? The people want news on Plain and Michael Jackson because they'd rather be entertained these days then focus on the leaders of our country or the recent evidence that has come to light through the media proving the former administrations encroachment of power on the checks and balances of our democracy through totalitarian means. There are media outlets that do put out serious news and ask the hard ball questions and make a justifiable attempt to be fair and balanced but it's ultimately up to the individuals to inform themselves and learn to discriminate what is a bias media outlet and what is a serious news outlet and seek those out. If more people are demanding serious news then serious news journalists would be delighted and we wouldn't be witnessing the death of the major networks Prime Time Evening News and the rise of niche marketed news tailored to what people want to hear. Some examples of these have been based off of tongue and cheek radio talk shows like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly Factor, Keith Olbermann instead of the more serious radio news shows on NPR or the BBC. The biases to these outlets are mostly well known by the educated but when it comes to comedy satire news shows such as The Daily Show some people mostly younger audiences fail to see it for what it is and consider it a source of news which is a huge failure for the educational system and makes one wonder the ramifications.

If people want drama then the powers that be will say go get the story from Levi Johnson because we need more controversy on Palin to satisfy the audiences to capture their eyeballs to get the ratings to rake in the advertisers. The truth of the matter is with the inception of technology the media industry is not sure what the business model of the future is at the moment and they are trying all kinds of things while having to compete with citizen journalist, bloggers, iReporters who do not always uphold the ethics of serious journalists and also leads to confusion for the individuals.

Another things we see is that people want on demand instant access to information which they find online, through text messaging systems, iphone updates, widgets on their pc and sometime the pressure to be first with the breaking news compromises the content of the information when journalists should be fact checking because they have a responsibility to inform the people. With information becoming more accessible online we are watching the death of newspapers and magazines and news bureaus consolidating and attempting to go all online. The question is how to you get people to your site? We are also seeing the death of local news as the business model is changing there where once affiliates used to be paid for broadcasting the programing produced by Networks. This was good for the affiliates because the programming was of higher production value and had the brand name on it but now the Networks are wanting the affiliates to pay them for their programming which is a loss of serious revenue and cuts are being made across the news rooms. As the staff shrinks in the broadcast news departments there is more pressure on less individuals to produce newsworthy packages that will bring in ratings. Some stations will change their entire staff, some stations will focus on dramatic events such as murders, fires, scandals so you're only seeing these things and they to capture the complacent audiences attention they will sensationalize their news broadcast with dramatic theme music intros and exits and update their websites with strong bold colors and readers that go across the webpage to keep the eye engaged compromising content and quality because peoples attention spans have changed. If the interest isn't there then the funds aren't there to do the serious investigative news pieces like we've seen in the past with the Washington Post breaking the story on Watergate.

I really could go on at length about this and weave in the political aspects citing the relationships between all presidents and the development of media but then I would be writing a master thesis and there are already many good books out there on this; several of which I've been required to read over the course of my study.

[dalegg 143]

I'm thinking we probably have no idea who the Republican candidate for 2012 is going to be right now. One year after the 2004 elections I'm sure I had no idea who Barack Obama even was. Afterall he had only just been sworn in as a Senator in January of 2005. Palin as a candidate seems pretty far fetched really. I'm thinking this is closer to a Howard Dean type of thing. He was pretty popular in the beginning of the 2004 campaign, but then soon became the laughing stock of the primaries. Even as a loser, he was seen as being popular enough to become the head of the DNC just the next year.

[Danno 1,228]

I wouldn't be debating over what has been or what's going to be with Sarah Palin. She's just a device to distract from the current issues facing the administration and the critical information coming out about the former Administration practices. Turn your heads to the real issues instead of the non-issue.

Media bias and their lack of interest in reporting over cheerleading and obfuscation is my issue; what they did to Palin is merely a blatant example of their failings. That they STILL refuse to do their jobs, in preference of supporting Obama is a real issue not only for our evaluaton of this administration, but for our democracy. This has been going on for decades, but that the public is becoming obtuse to it is a serious issue. You claim to be a media person. If you understand what's at stake, this must concern you, too.

I could talk volumes on this subject from an eagle eye view point because of my media and politics degree. I also respect that you are highly educated in your area of expertise so I hope that you recognize that this is one subject matter that I can say I do know more about then you do for once. To be fair you should state what media outlets are failing in your opinion instead of generalizing them as a whole. Also I've already spoken on this subject in numerous threads to help redirect misconceptions so I will try to summarize it plainly.

I do agree with you that the general public has become dumb downed to the serious issues which they are partially to blame for. The TV is a follower not a leader. It gives the people what they want and is a slave to their eyeballs because they want those ratings. Palin is a non-issue in the scheme of things. The more prevalent issues at hand currently go all the way to the top of the totem pole and there is no need to waste energy on someone who has barely made a notch in it.

However, where is the attention of the people focused on at the moment? The people want news on Plain and Michael Jackson because they'd rather be entertained these days then focus on the leaders of our country or the recent evidence that has come to light through the media proving the former administrations encroachment of power on the checks and balances of our democracy through totalitarian means. There are media outlets that do put out serious news and ask the hard ball questions and make a justifiable attempt to be fair and balanced but it's ultimately up to the individuals to inform themselves and learn to discriminate what is a bias media outlet and what is a serious news outlet and seek those out. If more people are demanding serious news then serious news journalists would be delighted and we wouldn't be witnessing the death of the major networks Prime Time Evening News and the rise of niche marketed news tailored to what people want to hear. Some examples of these have been based off of tongue and cheek radio talk shows like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly Factor, Keith Olbermann instead of the more serious radio news shows on NPR or the BBC. The biases to these outlets are mostly well known by the educated but when it comes to comedy satire news shows such as The Daily Show some people mostly younger audiences fail to see it for what it is and consider it a source of news which is a huge failure for the educational system and makes one wonder the ramifications.

If people want drama then the powers that be will say go get the story from Levi Johnson because we need more controversy on Palin to satisfy the audiences to capture their eyeballs to get the ratings to rake in the advertisers. The truth of the matter is with the inception of technology the media industry is not sure what the business model of the future is at the moment and they are trying all kinds of things while having to compete with citizen journalist, bloggers, iReporters who do not always uphold the ethics of serious journalists and also leads to confusion for the individuals.

Another things we see is that people want on demand instant access to information which they find online, through text messaging systems, iphone updates, widgets on their pc and sometime the pressure to be first with the breaking news compromises the content of the information when journalists should be fact checking because they have a responsibility to inform the people. With information becoming more accessible online we are watching the death of newspapers and magazines and news bureaus consolidating and attempting to go all online. The question is how to you get people to your site? We are also seeing the death of local news as the business model is changing there where once affiliates used to be paid for broadcasting the programing produced by Networks. This was good for the affiliates because the programming was of higher production value and had the brand name on it but now the Networks are wanting the affiliates to pay them for their programming which is a loss of serious revenue and cuts are being made across the news rooms. As the staff shrinks in the broadcast news departments there is more pressure on less individuals to produce newsworthy packages that will bring in ratings. Some stations will change their entire staff, some stations will focus on dramatic events such as murders, fires, scandals so you're only seeing these things and they to capture the complacent audiences attention they will sensationalize their news broadcast with dramatic theme music intros and exits and update their websites with strong bold colors and readers that go across the webpage to keep the eye engaged compromising content and quality because peoples attention spans have changed. If the interest isn't there then the funds aren't there to do the serious investigative news pieces like we've seen in the past with the Washington Post breaking the story on Watergate.

I really could go on at length about this and weave in the political aspects citing the relationships between all presidents and the development of media but then I would be writing a master thesis and there are already many good books out there on this; several of which I've been required to read over the course of my study.

You made a lot of points but one you missed was.... if the People want entertainment, rather than serious news.... which is why they serve up Palin and Jackson..... why did they sit on the John Edwards screwin around on the wife....while running for President?

If it's not about "politics".... how do we explain that?

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

You made a lot of points but one you missed was.... if the People want entertainment, rather than serious news.... which is why they serve up Palin and Jackson..... why did they sit on the John Edwards screwin around on the wife....while running for President?

If it's not about "politics".... how do we explain that?

No one can determine at any one time what will be capturing an audience's attention. As I said TV is not the leader it's a follower. As far as the story's development there are factors involved with newsworthiness. Journalist have to evaluate timeliness, proximity, exceptional quality, possible future impact, prominence, conflict, the number of people involved or affected, consequences, human interest, pathos, shock value, and titillation component. It's as old as time that leaders have been known to have mistresses so people attention spans are to shrug it off when all is revealed such as the case most recently with South Carolina's Governor and his admitted affair. That story was covered and peaked in about a week or two and there may be some follow ups.

In the case of John Edwards the prominence was certainly there being a Presidential candidate but the timeliness wasn't. By the time the affair was discovered it had already been over for a year. Then there is the contrast between the reach of print journalism and broadcast journalism. The original series of articles on the affair were covered in print by the National Enquirer which doesn't have the awesome power that broadcast news has in reaching audiences and spreading news. Also Edwards had been denying the Enquirer's articles and it wasn't until the fact was revealed that a child was fathered during this relationship that interest gained and in his interview with Bob Woodruff of ABC News (national prime time television news) that he admitted to his dishonesty it reached audiences where interest peaked.

[ready4ONE 5,400]

Palin's Feel Bad For Me MySpace

[Sofiyya 1,687]

I could talk volumes on this subject from an eagle eye view point because of my media and politics degree. I also respect that you are highly educated in your area of expertise so I hope that you recognize that this is one subject matter that I can say I do know more about then you do for once. To be fair you should state what media outlets are failing in your opinion instead of generalizing them as a whole. Also I've already spoken on this subject in numerous threads to help redirect misconceptions so I will try to summarize it plainly.

Congratulations on your degree, Olivia. You did good. We have more in common than you may be aware of, tho. I don't post about subject I don't know much about, and that is true of ths topic. I'm so concerned about media bias because I used to be an investigative journalist myself, and this is not the first time I've spoken of that on VJ. My major was journalism in high school, and my minor in undergrad school. I was a government PR rep and speechwriter on Capital Hill while in graduate school. Although I've been out of journalism directly for a long time, I've been paying close attention. Still, you know what, you don't have to have been in journalism or politics to know that investigative reporting in the US has been in decline for more than 30 years, particularly in TV broadcasting and print media.

I do agree with you that the general public has become dumb downed to the serious issues which they are partially to blame for. The TV is a follower not a leader. It gives the people what they want and is a slave to their eyeballs because they want those ratings. Palin is a non-issue in the scheme of things. The more prevalent issues at hand currently go all the way to the top of the totem pole and there is no need to waste energy on someone who has barely made a notch in it.

TV is primarily a commercial enterprise, but as much as it follows, it also creates needs. My father's family was in advertising, and broadcast news has taken a page from advertising to learn not only to follow, but to create desire in its audience. TV journalism has, for some time now, created a bias toward liberalism and away from even a pretense of objectivity. While journalism's objectivity has always been spotty, the lack of a broad diversity of opinion does not, in any way, reflect the diversity that exists in the populace.

You miss my point when you repeat that Palin is a blip on the radar. I said that my point is not Palin herself, but the inability of the majority mainstream media to curb its tendency to trumpet values that reflect the agenda of a liberal elite that projects a visceral snobbery and preference for a very narrow segment of society who went to elite schools, live in the "best" areas, and project the "correct" image. There is not only a liberal bias in journalism, but there is also a classism in journalism which has actually become more pronounced as more minorities have entered the field over the last 20 years.

However, where is the attention of the people focused on at the moment? The people want news on Plain and Michael Jackson because they'd rather be entertained these days then focus on the leaders of our country or the recent evidence that has come to light through the media proving the former administrations encroachment of power on the checks and balances of our democracy through totalitarian means. There are media outlets that do put out serious news and ask the hard ball questions and make a justifiable attempt to be fair and balanced but it's ultimately up to the individuals to inform themselves and learn to discriminate what is a bias media outlet and what is a serious news outlet and seek those out. If more people are demanding serious news then serious news journalists would be delighted and we wouldn't be witnessing the death of the major networks Prime Time Evening News and the rise of niche marketed news tailored to what people want to hear. Some examples of these have been based off of tongue and cheek radio talk shows like Rush Limbaugh, O'Reilly Factor, Keith Olbermann instead of the more serious radio news shows on NPR or the BBC. The biases to these outlets are mostly well known by the educated but when it comes to comedy satire news shows such as The Daily Show some people mostly younger audiences fail to see it for what it is and consider it a source of news which is a huge failure for the educational system and makes one wonder the ramifications.

I agree, that the people have been dumbed down, and they seem to enjoy it, but you demonstrate your own liberal bias by omitting the fact that there is no serious examination in the mainstream media about the corruption, hypocrisy, and broken promises in THE PRESENT administration, which is as important. Bush is used as a diversion for this administration, and the mainsteam media says little or nothing about it. They don't even want to expose all sides of global warming. Also, PBS and the BBC are hardly fair and balanced, even if they do present themselves as more serious than others. There are built in biases even in where budget cuts are made, which bureaus are closed, what parts of your community or of the world you cover.

We also agree that younger audiences don't have a clue, and that the educational system has a great deal to do with that, but their short attention spans and lack of interest in hard news is not a boon to democracy, since created desire is specifically aimmed at them. For profit outlets cannot merely abdicate their responsibility to the First Amendment and the protections granted to news outlets in case law because it's not profitable. They need to do their duty or get out of reporting.

If people want drama then the powers that be will say go get the story from Levi Johnson because we need more controversy on Palin to satisfy the audiences to capture their eyeballs to get the ratings to rake in the advertisers. The truth of the matter is with the inception of technology the media industry is not sure what the business model of the future is at the moment and they are trying all kinds of things while having to compete with citizen journalist, bloggers, iReporters who do not always uphold the ethics of serious journalists and also leads to confusion for the individuals.

So, what audience are they catering to? Scandalous info, real or imagined, about Palin sells because liberalism is where they project from. 70% of conservatives polled say their opinion of Palin remains positive despite negative coverage and her upcoming resignation from office so they aren't interested in conservatives. Polling among moderates and independents shows that their view of Obama's policies has declined, but that has only reinforced the effort among the liberal media to pump Obama's agenda up. Did you hear about the Washington Post's recent attempt to sell access to Obama administration officials, who, apparently were willing to participate? How about ABC News disallowing opposing voices about the Dem's health care proposal during a broadcast from the White House? It got paltry ratings, btw. Why was Katie Couric presented an award for her interviews with Sarah Palin? So much for following the desire of the masses. So much for even hiding the pretense that one is not too cozy and in sync with the Democrats.

Another things we see is that people want on demand instant access to information which they find online, through text messaging systems, iphone updates, widgets on their pc and sometime the pressure to be first with the breaking news compromises the content of the information when journalists should be fact checking because they have a responsibility to inform the people. With information becoming more accessible online we are watching the death of newspapers and magazines and news bureaus consolidating and attempting to go all online. The question is how to you get people to your site? We are also seeing the death of local news as the business model is changing there where once affiliates used to be paid for broadcasting the programing produced by Networks. This was good for the affiliates because the programming was of higher production value and had the brand name on it but now the Networks are wanting the affiliates to pay them for their programming which is a loss of serious revenue and cuts are being made across the news rooms. As the staff shrinks in the broadcast news departments there is more pressure on less individuals to produce newsworthy packages that will bring in ratings. Some stations will change their entire staff, some stations will focus on dramatic events such as murders, fires, scandals so you're only seeing these things and they to capture the complacent audiences attention they will sensationalize their news broadcast with dramatic theme music intros and exits and update their websites with strong bold colors and readers that go across the webpage to keep the eye engaged compromising content and quality because peoples attention spans have changed. If the interest isn't there then the funds aren't there to do the serious investigative news pieces like we've seen in the past with the Washington Post breaking the story on Watergate.

I remember Watergate very well. I was around 19 when the story broke and it is what propelled me into investigative journalism. It's why most people of my generation became journalists. There's no reason why there are no funds to do that kind of journalism, and that was demonstrated by the rush to Alaska by journalists on the left seekig dirt on Palin. Their budgeting for dirt on conservatives is boundless. Their budgets for promoting liberal causes is boundless. That is what their broadcasts reflect. While I agree that budgets are being cut as revenues fall, the bottom line is that those who make those decisions are more willing to let revenue slide than to relinquish their liberal agenda, even as they circle the bowl.

I really could go on at length about this and weave in the political aspects citing the relationships between all presidents and the development of media but then I would be writing a master thesis and there are already many good books out there on this; several of which I've been required to read over the course of my study.

I'm still reading them, still studying. We will most likely revisit this topic again, Olivia. Thanks for your input

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

I learn something new about you every time. I agree investigative journalism is in decline as well as many others who are senior to me in their career fields have said in guest lectures as well as they have also said the same as you in that Watergate is the reason they became investigative journalist.

Advertising and PR are a different creature from Journalism but in the same family as of Media. PR as you well know is considered the dark side of Journalism. Which reminds me of something related to this last campaign I should touch on but I'll come back to it. I get your point but my point on Palin was one I felt you missed in my original statement which is ---> there are more important issues going on right now in the media ---> with the current administration ---> having to deal with the past administration ---> which is all tied together ---> because of some of the same player still being involved in various branches of the government currently. Obama said he would root out the corruption and he's not. Which agrees with your theory on the liberalized media somewhat because no one is asking the hard ball questions of why isn't he being held to his promises and why is he aligning himself more and more with Bush policies?

Again it's up to the individual to inform themselves and discriminate what is a bias media outlet and what isn't. Perhaps the majority of Western media is liberal but that's not all the media. And because of advertising dollars and the new multi-media platforms with various ways to bring information to people, dvr's, t-vo, interactive advertising, webisodes, ect...the model is changing and in a state of fluctuation. All the professors and teachers of todays journalism schools can hope they instill the traditional values of Edward R. Murrow but ones in the real world in a production room it an unstable ball of wax were no one in the industry knows where their feet are going to land.

The Christian Science Monitor known for it's more objective superior world news magazine announced last year due to budget that it would no longer be publishing their magazines and planned to dedicate all it's material to going online in hope to transfer subscribership over, reduce cost, and preserve it's many news bureaus around the world.

Another obvious way to see that not all the media is liberalized is by going outside the United States beyond the captured audience that we are and having an opportunity to be exposed to other medias and other view points such as Al Jazeera English. While it's not currently permitted to broadcast in the United States it can be accessed on the web if one seeks it. Which brings me back to the new media which we've been learning about since you've been out of undergrad school.

The internet is a vast and wide open sewer with hardly any laws or regulations to govern it besides some copyright laws which are being pursued and a few cases on defamation and written word which are appearing in the courts. In the last election we were following it in class and learning about it as it was being called the first internet election. The battle ground was new. Independent people were taking it upon themselves to mimic authentic news sites and create bogus news in order to damage opponents, which was then reported on by genuine news outlets who should have fact checked further but with so much of the attention on the general election captivating audiences the pressure to put information out there first was higher. Which lead other news organizations to take those news sources as trusted sources even with attributions feeding off of each other. Like the article also mentioned we saw bloggers doing their version of the news, such as a conservative female blogger you may well recall whose name must not be mentioned in the mena forum ever again, had niche audiences following this. Attention by the media was being given to what these clearly bias outlets had to say and while they are practicing their First Amendment rights they are not held to the same standard and ethical responsibilty that is being upheld to more serious news journalists and outlets.

It became a tangled web of deceptions from all sides of the playing field. The political parties on both sides of the fence had their PR people out there on public message boards just like this one creating news and misinformation to sway the opinion of the people focusing more on the horse race then on the real issues. Even advertisers would tell you the market is fragmenting into niche's and that was crystallized in the 1990's as the original post refers to. What they saw then was that audiences were more interested in the drama of the OJ Simpson trial and the Nancy Kerrigan and Tanya Harding stories and Amy Fisher stories then world issues being presented on the nightly news casts. The decline has been going on for awhile. IMO if there were still investigative journalists such as Woodward and Bernstein would Bush Jr.'s administration really have gotten away with their abuses of their executive powers? And wouldn't there be calls to action such as Walter Cronkite did for the CBS evening news when the Watergate story broke in the Washington Post? Are the investigative journalists still out there trying to wade through the waste of the open sewer and excessive information overload becoming bogged down by the misinformation in their path?

Those are just some of the things I wanted to further touch on and lastly say yes there was discussion about the theory of the liberalized media but there is also just as many arguments out there that there is no liberal media conspiracy but rather those with their own biases that hold those views and see what they want to see. And lastly I was say it again that ultimately it is up to the individual to inform themselves and discriminate what is bias, what is objective, what is fair, and what is not...

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Anyways it's 5 am here and I'm tired as I can see my steam started to run out in my conclusion. It just feels like rhetoric on both our parts with a few new pieces of information brought to the discussion.

Edited July 13, 2009 by ~Flower~

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Media bias and their lack of interest in reporting over cheerleading and obfuscation is my issue;

To be fair you should state what media outlets are failing in your opinion instead of generalizing them as a whole.

Good luck with that, Olivia.

[Dr. A ♥ O 203]

Media bias and their lack of interest in reporting over cheerleading and obfuscation is my issue;

To be fair you should state what media outlets are failing in your opinion instead of generalizing them as a whole.

Good luck with that, Olivia.

A wise man once said...and then I reread the original article and had to assume she was referring and or agreeing with all the ones he stated.

[one...two...tree 2,762]

Media bias and their lack of interest in reporting over cheerleading and obfuscation is my issue;

To be fair you should state what media outlets are failing in your opinion instead of generalizing them as a whole.

Good luck with that, Olivia.

A wise man once said...and then I reread the original article and had to assume she was referring and or agreeing with all the ones he stated.