The State of Political Media

[Moot]

Can it get worse? More manipulated and banal than this?
Listen to this clip of Ed Milliband, leader of the opposition and potential Prime Minister of the UK talking about the public sector strikes.
This is not a fake video, this is how it was unedited. Lip sync is a bit out though.

 

[Danoff]

That's awesome!

This is what we all get for subscribing to the media that we do. We all asked for this.

 

[Omnis]

That was reckless and provocative.

 

[Danisfast]

C'mon Ed, I'm sure the Labour party made you their leader (over your brother) for a good reason; so let's see it!

 

[Moot]

The journalist is embarrassed and infuriated by being used like this, and said he is glad the full video is there for people to mock Milliband and see his style.

 

[Keef]

By the third question I finally realized that the guy was just saying the same thing over and over again.

I don't get it? Should we be cheering for the government guy for saying what needs to be said despite the media asking questions and trying to make him look bad, or should we be sympathetic to the media for having to deal with yet another politician who doesn't say anything that really matters? Am very confused.

 

[Omnis]

It's the media's job to get on these idiots' cases. We know politicians are scum, but the media have become scum curators instead of scum cleaners.

 

[sumbrownkid]

^Which is why I stopped watching the news altogether and just watch the Daily Show or Colbert Report.

At least I can laugh when I watch them.

 

[Joel]

That was reckless and provocative.

Why can't you just put aside the rhetoric for once?

 

[Moot]

I think the public and parents have been let down by both sides.

 

[Keef]

It's the media's job to get on these idiots' cases. We know politicians are scum, but the media have become scum curators instead of scum cleaners.

So you're mad that the interviewer just sat there and went along with it instead of slapping the man across the mouth?

 

[Omnis]

So you're mad that the interviewer just sat there and went along with it instead of slapping the man across the mouth?

Yep. I would've thrown my shoe at his head, Iraqi style.

 

[Keef]

Okay, I just wanted to make sure we were on the same page. For the record, I'd have slapped both of them, told the interviewer to stop being a bitch, and the politician to stfu.

 

[Pupik]

We need to put aside our rhetoric, go to the negotiating table, and stop this type of thing from happening again.

 

[Famine]

You're behaving in a reckless and provocative manner.

 

[Pupik]

We need to put aside our rhetoric, go to the negotiating table, and stop this type of thing from happening again. For the children.

 

[AndersonG22]

The media is a business these days, what ever sells the most papers or gets the most views is what they focus on. Its entertainment first, what sells more papers celebrities going to jail or the after affects on the environment and health risks of BP's mess? Athony weiners scandle or the state of the economy and unemployment, what would get more views is more important then what really matters. This country is turning to crap and nobody seems to notice or give a damn.

 

[Pupik]

The strikes are wrong while negotiations are still going on.

 

[TheCracker]

The media is a business these days, what ever sells the most papers or gets the most views is what they focus on.

'The media' has always been a business first, puplic imformation service second.

I was reading about the origins of the News of the World Sunday paper earlier today. As it's been going for 167 years, i'd expected that it had originally been a respectable paper that had, over time, become the appalling rag it is today. But no. Turns out that it's always been that way. It was set up as a paper for Britain's newly emerging semi-literate population . At least it's stuck to it's market-segment for all these years.

 

[AndersonG22]

'The media' has always been a business first, puplic imformation service second.

I was reading about the origins of the News of the World Sunday paper earlier today. As it's been going for 167 years, i'd expected that it had originally been a respectable paper that had, over time, become the appalling rag it is today. But no. Turns out that it's always been that way. It was set up as a paper for Britain's newly emerging semi-literate population . At least it's stuck to it's market-segment for all these years.

I sit corrected.

 

[Danoff]

By the third question I finally realized that the guy was just saying the same thing over and over again.

I don't get it? Should we be cheering for the government guy for saying what needs to be said despite the media asking questions and trying to make him look bad, or should we be sympathetic to the media for having to deal with yet another politician who doesn't say anything that really matters? Am very confused.

The problem is that if this guy delivers his talking points and then answers, for example, the question "have you personally be affected" on a more direct level - the only clip the media run is the one where he says "No, my daughter is in private school so this hasn't affected me personally". Suddenly the guy looks like an asshat and his message doesn't get conveyed.

So the problem is one of media integrity. Rather than actually deliver the message that people want to convey, they chop out whatever they feel like and deliver whatever sort of out-of-context crap they think will be appealing to consumers. Why do they do this? Because we're stupid enough to pay them to do that.

If the public at large had their priorities straight, they wouldn't care that the guy has a daughter in private school and hasn't been affected because they understand that he's been elected to represent them and isn't necessarily in the same situation as his constituents. It's our own fault for buying into the sensationalist, sound bite, out-of-context, and in the end, pointless media hype. It's cultural.