there really isn't a question that the media is more often a joke than not these days, with the curious and corrupt marriage of political commentary and subjectivity welded with 'journalism'. seeing we're in wartime now, i recall what i heard about about vietnam being the first war that was brought into the living rooms of america every day. besides the obvious technological advances, how do you think journalism has changed? did it ever have an objective moment? was there ever a more rawer, less condensed version of media journalism? just curious, because if there was, this was definitely the time for it.
Well... if I was wondering... I think that Journalism was the most popular those days... because that was the only way of communitation, after the TV... Now we have Computers & Internet... and, for some of us, Journalism seems to be a bit 'in 2nd plan'... In the other hand, it`s still appriciated by some (read : older ones) people... But, Yes, I do think that during the Vietnam war, it was actually brought into every house, thanks to newspapers.
I wish there were magazines around not like IT, Ink, Suck and Oz like there were in the sixties, you know, peoples media rather than medias media, you know that self perpetuationg crap produced by rich bastards Bring back opinion, SAY YES TO UNDERGROUND PRESS!
i agree. the media is fueled by the funds and needs of the people on the top. ironically, i wasn't thinking about the internet, where younger people do, indeed, get most of their information. my household is media obessed...the only thing that seems to be watched on our television is the news. and i think papers and magazines are still a staple in many places. unfortunately, i think this weird, subjective punditry has soaked into every aspect of media, modern and antiquated.
Well technically,media is any medium of communication, a letter, a movie, the news, magazines, mobile phone etc. I disagree that we had rawer media in the past because back then the travel of information was much slower and storied were polished more than they are now. For instance, we now have live coverage rather than delayed coverage, which can be edited. Live coverage is unable to be rehearsed and therefore we have what is somewhat of a on the run journalist approach.
Can't say anything about tv coverage; as none of the street people I knew had a TV. But the underground radio was GREAT! Not just music, but discussions on any subject and info on demostrations, free concerts, etc. But photography was at it's apex, with the possible exception of WW2. Two in particular had a huge influence on the silent zombies. The first was coverage of the Buddhist Monks setting themselves on fire to protest The U.S. supported Christian Government's practice of putting the most important monks in Black Boxes for months. The 2nd was the little girl who had been Napalmed, clothes hair, skin gone but with no fire. I understand that both were shown on TV, causing great consternation with the public. I saw both of those later and if you will excuse a long post; I was disturbed personnally as several of us saw a soldier who had spilled Napalm on himself.we had to tackle him and use blankets to put out the invisable fire ~ AND IN La later became friends of one of the Monks who had been in the boxes for 3 months. Have seen both several times over the years and still cry when I see them. They have been regarded as turning points in that war. Nameste
sure, the media wasn't as fast paced. my mother told me that stories would come out in the newspaper and often be several days past. i just think there might have been more truth to the media. we may be live and cutting edge now, but it seems to be so distorted. john cox, if only we had things like real underground radio and excellent photojournalism in our midst now...the collective of americans that neglect current events so shamelessly could not as easily with those impressions, it seems. all of the photographs you have mentioned (the monks, the girl on fire) are still the images i, as a young person, get in my head when i think of vietnam, nearly forty years later. one thing i do think is a step foward for journalism is the idea of the 'embedded reporter.' i still feel wary, but that is about as live and direct as it gets.
Some of the biggest changes in the media, news or entertainment, would be the advent of the personal computer accessing the internet and growth of cable - satilite TV. Taken together, these 2 innovations broke up the almost monolistic media power the 3 major national networks had on this country. Hundreds of international news websites such as the Drudge report along with CNN and Fox news, etc., make the "Nightly News" a quaint throwback to the 70's. It was said the night Walter Cronkite delivered his only personal opinion piece during the newsbroadcast suggesting the War in Vietnam couldn't be won (the Tet offesive had recently been concluded). Pres. Johnson was said to believed if Cronkite believes the war was lost, then the rest of the Americans would follow suit. Supposidly this went into his decision not to run for the Presidency in 1968. Dan Rather is not as influencial Walter Cronkite was. Oddly enough, it was the Vietnam war and Watergate, long term serious events, which established the National News Anchor's celebrity and high pay scale. Bias in the news media is nothing new. James Callendar, who "outed" Thomas Jefferson and the Sally Hemmings story worked for a newspaper founded by Thomas Jefferson. If I have my story correct, Pres. Jefferson wouldn't give Callendar a political job. Callendar responded by quitting Jefferson's newspaper and began working for a rival political newspaper, then writing about the Jefferson/Hemmings affair.
If you want to get a feel for what the media were like, go to a big library that has archived, probably on microfilm, magazines and newspapers from the time period you are interested in and do some reading. I've done the exercise a few times myself. You can also easily rent movies filmed then and obtain books written then. Television, of course, is harder. As far as underground media go, the Internet is a far better medium for distributing alternative opinions and views than any of that stuff ever was. A person who has something to say that he can say well has a better chance than ever before of gaining influence simply because of the strength of his arguments. Regarding objectivity, I don't think it is actually possible. Everyone has personal biases and blind spots, and they are going to influence how they filter and analyze information. I think it would be far more honest if journalists quit pretending to be objective and instead made public knowledge their relevant beliefs. That way, people could take those beliefs into consideration as they read/watch/listen.
Couldn't put it better myself. The corporate cable 'news' channels are a joke. They are much the same as the National Inquirer. It's all gossip and political rants, and endless chatter about the Scott Peterson case, as if we really care. (the Peterson case been covered daily for almost two years. Martha Stewart went on for almost 3 years.) And they're still rolling that same 10-second clip from the mililtary of the doctor picking through Saddam's hair for lice. What a rut these networks are stuck in. Did you ever notice how the backgrounds on all of the cable news networks look like a video arcade? I don't think any news groups in the 70s and earlier harped for years on the same useless gossip stories like the Peterson case. There was the National Inquirer back then, but that was always meant as a gossip magazine, not a TV news show. News networks in countries outside the U.S. give more objective information and less political rant. I pick up NHK News from Japan, Newsworld International from Canada, ITN from Britain, and Deutche Welle from Germany on satellite. They are a breath of fresh air compared with the U.S. gossip cable networks. The internet is now one of the best places to get news. One can get most of the info that the networks censor or don't have the guts to show because it might offend the White House or make corporate America look bad. Satellite TV and radio is the next best for me. I never realized how warped the view from U.S. corporate media was until I started listening to foreign news networks.
Who did'nt sit in horror as we watched our tv's that morning on Sept 11th. I was getting ready for work and I couldnt move. The impact of the media is a very important tool, unfortunatley the truth can also be munipulated and edited. And then it becomes a tool for brainwashing instead of informing.
