Quote from: blablahblah on January 10, 2015, 12:52:36 PM

Quote from: username18333 on January 10, 2015, 06:30:15 AM

Quote from: blablahblah on January 10, 2015, 01:44:03 AM

Maybe I missed my "scheduled programming" but I blame the media for fanning the flames over this saga. If things turn ugly, THEY, the idiot journalists will also have blood on their hands for causing even more deaths.

. . .

(Red colorization mine.)

What of the profit motive, which drives the media to their fanning the flames?

In this case a trade motive or survival motive would be more ethical than a profit motive. I just don't see any way in which both sides can make clean profit with mutual gain and no-one getting hurt. It's totally asymmetrical, both in terms of information asymmetry and profit asymmetry.

It's easy for viewers to forget (or never realise) that they're watching a highly editorialised work of art. Hundreds of other news items are censored out because they have less emotional impact, and viewers can never be 100% sure where the funding comes from or how much they personally pay when they go shopping later. Is it just ad breaks, or is there also product placement, bribes, blackmail, or government subsidies involved? Viewers don't even know their individual costs, whereas the media companies do know where their money comes from, and they also front-run and editorialise every piece of news before distributing it out after a delay.

You seem like it is a bad thing that viewers are having their food readily chewed. Funding you described is essential for a media to exist. In western societies I can trust that it is coming from friendly sources and that it is leading to good journalism.

What you said about editorializing is true. I have found a lot of falsificated information but they have all been from tabloids. They are profiting from fanning the flames and some subjects have been actually pretty entertaining.

I have found some highly editorialized information even from national sources, for example about the economical crisis. It is more like overgeneralizing the facts than purposefully offering misleading information. This is mainly a good thing because not everyone has a possibility to process a really complex set of facts.

I have formed my view by comparing various foreign news sources, blog posts and discussion forums. Almost every time my own conclusion have matched the one that I read from national news sources.

One has to have the ability to separate the rightful information from the bold headlines on tabloids and from other not so truthful sources. If someone can not do so I would not blame the medium.

I pay for my national television in form of income taxes and I think it is a really good way to fund truthful journalism. You have probably participated democratic elections in case you do not happen to live in Crimea. Government subsidies are for your own good.

Global medium and Charlie Hebdo has done the only right thing possible in this situation. Journalists shouldn't let the fright win.