Bellichick, The Media and The Theater of Sports (warning: long read)

[FlyingElvis75]

Whoah, wth is all this about Chavez now? I thought we were talking about Easterbrook/Collinsworth/King/Michael David Smith and all the other carrion feeders on "spygate."

Anyway. I think the point stands: no matter what you may think of the "mainstream" media, sports media tends to be far worse.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

I am wholeheartedly in favor of better press outlets, such as the New York Times, and the real networks' news operations (for the most part.) In international affairs, of course, they must function as cheering sections for American policy, in that they sell papers to American readers. But they tend to be somewhat more restrained in their jingoism than some of the more fantasy-related outfits, such as Fox.

I've read many a critique claiming the "mainstream media", or "MM" as right-wing zealots have now abbreviated the term, are biased to the left. The fact is, all mainstream media in this nation are biased in favor of the home team, vis., the United States. We have not, for example, seen discussions of foreign invasion to force a regime change in this country. You can't run such an editorial in any real news source. You can, however, discuss American invasions of other nations to force a regime change. This fact is the log we all have in our eye, while examining the mote in the eye of the mainstream media (oooo they're so liberal, they say just invade ONE country not TWO!)

I also read a lot of critiques saying, "They didn't cover this story, which demonstrates their bias." Typically the stories are non-stories from a news perspective, or they are based on non-facts from an accuracy perspective. With a little digging, we find that it's the equivalent of criticizing one or another outlet for not covering the meanderings of Bat Boy, then lauding the courageous Weekly World News, the only paper with the "courage" to run the Bat Boy story, with the rest of the world being cowed by a liberal establishment. The trouble is that, like Iraq's mobile weapons labs, Bat Boy did not exist.

But that's right... this is the football thread. Suffice it to say that the media have fallen all over themselves to add asterisks to the Pats' achievements. You'll note that they've become total ballwashers thereafter, based on, you guessed it, the Pats' achievements.

I'm even hearing fans of other teams say it now - "Well, it wasn't what won them those Super Bowls, but it's just disappointing." Hey, honestly, that's how I feel too.

PFnV

 

[Wildo7]

Whoah, wth is all this about Chavez now? I thought we were talking about Easterbrook/Collinsworth/King/Michael David Smith and all the other carrion feeders on "spygate."

Anyway. I think the point stands: no matter what you may think of the "mainstream" media, sports media tends to be far worse.

lol, I really didn't want to discuss Chavez, that's why i said "I'm not praising him or denouncing him" in my original post, I was just raising him as an example. But he launched into an indictment of Chavez and was somehow trying to infer that the Mainstream media is supportive of Chavez, which I find to be a ridiculous statement and couldn't help myself but counter.

 

[Wildo7]

PatsfaninVA, The thing is that our media is Corporately owned, which means it cares about a)ratings/ad revenue and b) not doing anything that will undermine the greater profit goals of the corporation.

In sports this means that we are given entertaining talking heads instead of actual news which leads to contrived controversy that sometimes irritates a certain fanbase while generally pleasing the larger population. In the real world, the result of corporate conglomeration and concentration of media amongst has far more damaging and dangerous implications.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

PatsfaninVA, The thing is that our media is Corporately owned, which means it cares about a)ratings/ad revenue and b) not doing anything that will undermine the greater profit goals of the corporation.

In sports this means that we are given entertaining talking heads instead of actual news which leads to contrived controversy that sometimes irritates a certain fanbase while generally pleasing the larger population. In the real world, the result of corporate conglomeration and concentration of media amongst has far more damaging and dangerous implications.

Is that you, Noam?

 

[Wildo7]

Is that you, Noam?

Lol yeah it's me, live from MIT

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Okay, then I gotta tell ya, bad call on the khmer rouge!

 

[Wildo7]

Okay, then I gotta tell ya, bad call on the khmer rouge!

yeah, might have messed up a little on Lebanon in the early 80's too, but stack me up against the rest, and I'm still right 99% of the time. Especially that Dershowitz, not a big fan of him.

 

[MichaelL]

Here's my take on bias in Media. As usual with differing and opposing opinions, both sides are partially right. The Media is own by corporate interests, yet the actual reporters are mostly liberal(over 90% according to some surveys). What does this create? Well exactly we observe. Liberal bias can easily be found in written stories. AIM(Accuracy in Media) is a conservative organization that loves to point out in the liberal bias in stories that they dig up. The liberal counterpoint FAIR(I don't know the abbreviation) loves to point out how many corporate/conservative damaging stories are not covered or suppressed.

Given the dynamic in the American media, it's not surprising that both sides are constantly able to find fuel for their arguments, because in a way both sides are right. Fox News being the exception, since all the conservative reporters seem to have congregated there. The only way is to do what the initial poster suggested, apply a critical eye to what you read and do some digging for yourself.

 

[WeBB15]

Media has turned this way because its easier to understand the news when it is heard as opinionated conversation, such as we do in the real world, with our friends and family. Fact after Fact is not intersting and doesnt take up enough time to get into the majority of the peoples head, because we as people, think most of our lives like when were skimming a book; we watch channels for a few seconds and hearing just facts dont keep you on that channel, conversaton does, headlines on papers, fast food, fast internet, Just its our nature to want everything now and/or quickly as possible.

Opinion-based speculation and controversy and debate take things down to a "real world" experience and hence more people can understand, which in turn brings more interest and a bigger audience, and that brings more cash and revenue. Now that more and more media outlets are finding this brings a broader audience, you will see almost every media outlet giving more opinions and speculation with a small amount of facts.

 

[Wildo7]

Media has turned this way because its easier to understand the news when it is heard as opinionated conversation, such as we do in the real world, with our friends and family. Fact after Fact is not intersting and doesnt take up enough time to get into the majority of the peoples head, because we as people, think most of our lives like when were skimming a book; we watch channels for a few minutes and hearing just facts dont keep you on that channel, conversaton does, headlines on papers, fast food, fast internet, Just its our nature to want everything now and/or quickly as possible. Opinion-based speculation and controversy and debate take things down to a "real world" experience and hence more people can understand, which in turn brings more interest and a bigger audience, and that brings more cash and revenue. Now that more and more media outlets are finding this brings a broader audience, you will see almost every media outlet giving more opinions and speculation with a small amount of facts.

I think your letting people off the hook too easily. I wouldn't call most of the arguing done by the talking heads as "debate." It's not in depth, it's a bunch of soundbites and catch phrases, and I think when it comes down to it, people want a little more than what our media offers, which is why there's so much criticism of it. People want facts and good journalism but they get lazy and want, as that ESPN ombudsman pointed out, "fast-food journalism." When you combine that with a terrible educational system and a total lack of critical thinking, you have a mass of people that can be easily swayed whatever way you want. I'm not trying to be "anti-American" here but watch the BBC. It's what people in Britain rely on and it's fairly objective and "fact" based. We could do a lot better if all Americans watched the BBC.

And mediamatters.org is also a great site.

 

[letekro]

I think your letting people off the hook too easily. I wouldn't call most of the arguing done by the talking heads as "debate." It's not in depth, it's a bunch of soundbites and catch phrases, and I think when it comes down to it, people want a little more than what our media offers, which is why there's so much criticism of it. People want facts and good journalism but they get lazy and want, as that ESPN ombudsman pointed out, "fast-food journalism." When you combine that with a terrible educational system and a total lack of critical thinking, you have a mass of people that can be easily swayed whatever way you want. I'm not trying to be "anti-American" here but watch the BBC. It's what people in Britain rely on and it's fairly objective and "fact" based. We could do a lot better if all Americans watched the BBC.

And mediamatters.org is also a great site.

You're merely indicating your personal preference. As you have stated, the majority is not interested in, or even capable of understanding, fact-based reporting. Stating that "people want" "real journalism" is not by any stretch of the imagination one of those "facts" that you hold so dear.

 

[Wildo7]

You're merely indicating your personal preference. As you have stated, the majority is not interested in, or even capable of understanding, fact-based reporting. Stating that "people want" "real journalism" is not by any stretch of the imagination one of those "facts" that you hold so dear.

I never said my opinion was fact. My belief is that deep down, people want something more out of the people that provide them with news, and I pointed to the BBC as an example of how a large population is capable of understanding fact-based reporting.

 

[letekro]

I never said my opinion was fact. My belief is that deep down, people want something more out of the people that provide them with news, and I pointed to the BBC as an example of how a large population is capable of understanding fact-based reporting.

Are you sure that a majority of british people are going to the BBC for their news? If so, how are you sure, or why do think so?

At any rate, even assuming british people flock to the tellie to watch the BBC nightly news, I would never compare the comprehension abilities of the British with us. To paraphrase a well-known quote, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the American public. Additionally, we just have less free time to digest serious reporting. Maybe if we went to the 30 hour work week, we could appreciate journalism as much as they do.

 

[Wildo7]

Are you sure that a majority of british people are going to the BBC for their news? If so, how are you sure, or why do think so?

At any rate, even assuming british people flock to the tellie to watch the BBC nightly news, I would never compare the comprehension abilities of the British with us. To paraphrase a well-known quote, no one ever went broke underestimating the intelligence of the average American.

right. but that comes down to the education system. And ours is not so good, and it's not an accident. But I'm hesitant to fall into the "Americans are stupid" rant because I think that all people are stupid or smart, depending on how they are educated.

 

[PatsFanInVa]

Dershowitz annoys me on occasion, but then, he writes opinions when he writes for the press at all. I find him to be overzealous in applying the "antisemite" label, but also find his thinking on Israel much better than the average American's; he's realistic, in the sense that he says judge Israel as you would judge other nations, whether in the Middle East, or the U.S.'s own international behavior.

Commentary from the left regarding Israel, from my point of view, is approaching worthlessness. The centrist left is criticized for being "old-fashioned" and controlled by the "Israel lobby," which, depending on the use and the source, may just be a code-word for "Jews." The "real" left, by contrast, insists on Israeli national suicide as the only "equitable" solution far too often.

It's sad when yours truly finds as much truth on Fox as on CNN -- which is close to what happened during the recent Hezbollah conflict.

PFnV

 

[WeBB15]

No you don't know what the majority of people want... Corporations do.

The majority of the entire US population enjoy hearing conversation and peoples opinion, because simply more entertaing and easier to understand. Also, the majority are naive or igorant, w/e you want to call it, to the credibility of whose reporting. The majority believe the creditibility of the media outlet or reporter is trustworthy enough to believe and base as their own opinion, then their opinion is changed to a fact because the majority thought that the credibility was reliable, when in actuality its not. So the media is basically brainwashing us, and as I recently read, almost all media outlets are "controversy brewing factories".

 

[Wildo7]

Dershowitz annoys me on occasion, but then, he writes opinions when he writes for the press at all. I find him to be overzealous in applying the "antisemite" label, but also find his thinking on Israel much better than the average American's; he's realistic, in the sense that he says judge Israel as you would judge other nations, whether in the Middle East, or the U.S.'s own international behavior.

Commentary from the left regarding Israel, from my point of view, is approaching worthlessness. The centrist left is criticized for being "old-fashioned" and controlled by the "Israel lobby," which, depending on the use and the source, may just be a code-word for "Jews." The "real" left, by contrast, insists on Israeli national suicide as the only "equitable" solution far too often.

It's sad when yours truly finds as much truth on Fox as on CNN -- which is close to what happened during the recent Hezbollah conflict.

PFnV

Wow this thread has taken an interesting turn. I fear I'm going to get flamed pretty soon.

I wouldn't say that Chomsky is in favor of doing away with Israel persay, he favors a two-state solution but not in the same way that Dershowitz claims to favor. Chomsky would argue that Israel has a disparate amount of power being largely dependant on the U.S. which aids it more than it does any other country. He has argued that Israel publicly claims to be working towards peace and making concessions for Israel while privately undermining it (i.e. pulling out of Gaza while expanding settlement projects). And anyone in Washington will tell you that the most influential foreign policy lobbying group is AIPAC. A President will never get elected without having their blessing/PAC money and thus American foreign policy will also coincide with the interests of Israel. The problem with wrapping a state and an ethnicity into one entity is that any criticism of the Israeli government and it's policies towards the Palestinian people is taken as a criticism of the jewish people, and thus the "anti-semite" label is a powerful tool in discrediting dissent, which is why you'll hear Dershowitz call Chomsky a "self-hating jew" which is pretty absurd if you think about it.

By the way, do you work in DC?

 

[Wildo7]

No you don't know what the majority of people want... Corporations do.

The majority of the entire US population enjoy hearing conversation and peoples opinion, because simply more entertaing and easier to understand. Also, the majority are naive or igorant, w/e you want to call it, to the credibility of whose reporting. The majority believe the creditibility of the media outlet or reporter is trustworthy enough to believe and base as their own opinion, then their opinion is changed to a fact because the majority thought that the credibility was reliable, when in actuality its not. So the media is basically brainwashing us, and as I recently read, almost all media outlets are "controversy brewing factories".

I'm not really sure what you're disagreeing with me on here...but I would say that corporations don't necessarily "know" what people want so much as they tell people what they want. I believe that's the purpose of advertising and propaganda. And it may be more entertaining, but I don't believe the role of the news is to "entertain" people, it's supposed to be a source of information and way to hold those with power accountable, which is why I don't think the profit model works as far as the news is concerned.

 

[LoveDemPats]

Interesting.

Even the some of the responses are kinda proving the point of the first post.

That we are better off knowing about how unscrupulous writers can be is hard to believe. I think that many people will strive to emulate them believe it or not.

Lets face it, if you open a thread on this or any board that is caustic, or controversial, you will get a lot of play. And, if you are a person who wants to have a bunch of people paying attention to you, then you will certainly say things that seem rather caustic.

Same with folks who write for a living.

And, I guess that it makes me kinda sad sometimes because it wears me out.

I think that you are right though. I think that I am better off knowing just how low some of the journalists will go.

Thanks for the opening.