|
|
|
Évaluation du client type
Partagez votre opinion avec les autres clients
|
|
|
› Voir les points de vue les plus utiles
|
|
The News About the Business of News, Nov. 11 2003
I am generally disgusted with the way that news is reported in today's news market. "The News About the News" touched several good points as to why most of our society feels this disturbed rejection to the papers that are thrown on our porches each morning. Written by two editors from the acclaimed Washington Post, both with almost fourty years of journalistic experience, this is no attempt by a green author to turn an old argument into a paycheck. Yet, although their approach to explaining their viewpoints on the decline of investigative reporting, and good public service was informative - the news about their profession was never conclusive. Not one point was made which outright stated what should be done with a declining audience in today's market. The last few points were along the lines of a transition into the age of new technology, and what the impending effect would have on how news is handled. There were some great points made in reference to huge corporations mishandling the news that we view, in order to make a better profit for their stockholders... but these points and the handful of others could have been made in less pages. Instead, the spin cycle of reapeated premises and dry view points wore on again and again till the last sentence. What does the public want? An answer, and a better journalistic approach to todays news in foreign, domestic and investigative reporting. Yet as was discussed in the book we aren't going to see this until the business of the news comes out of the clouds from making profits and floats back into the reality of public service.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
 
|
|
|
|
|
|
Good perspective on the reality of news journalism, Nov. 30 2002
Two veteran reporters of the Washington Post have pooled their talents to produce "The News about the News". Leonard Downie, Jr. and Robert Kaiser provide a detailed analysis of the problems with news today and how it got into the current condition. They take the position that the news used to be about good journalism but today the emphasis is on making a profit. How does one make a profit in the media business? Well the surest way is to make it entertaining. Could this be why there is a minimum of international reporting in the news today and an expansive reporting of the social life of celebrities? Downie and Kaiser argue persuasively that it is. When the focus is on increasing shareholder value then the method is to increase subscriptions or viewer share. The way to do this is to provide information that the purchasers or viewers want to see. The whole situation reminds me of a conversation with a history book publisher when he was asked about the fact that the history book for middle school students had so many errors he stated that they are in the business to sell books and not to supply correct history texts. School Boards generally have parents that help select the textbooks for the system to use and so they print history the way the parents want it portrayed. It does not matter if it is correct, what matters is that it is accepted by as many schools as possible. This seems to be somewhat the same attitude of today's news media. While what they state may or may not be correct, it is often highly biased and hard news is often left out in favor of news of minimal value. Apparently the current direction of news is to entertain more than it is to inform. Downie and Kaiser make a point that unbiased, hard reporting will also sell papers and increase viewers. There are people who want a complete picture of the news and they will tune in to a news broadcast that is less entertainment and more informational. They note that fewer and fewer people are tuning into the news as the broadcasters scramble to try to increase their market share of a declining pool. What they don't note is the effect that things like cable television have had. I know many, many people who have come to tune into the BBC News Channels so that they can get a decent news broadcast and actually know what is going on in the world. Perhaps the pool of people who are watching the news is increasing, but the group of people who watch it for entertainment purposes is decreasing. "The News about the News" is a recommended read for anyone interested in what goes on behind the scenes at the news or a brief survey of how news has changed over the last twenty years. Well written in a style that is easy to read it is sure to dismay those still naive enough to think that the news is reported in an unbiased and complete manner. But the authors hold out hope that as the media realizes that it can also make money with hard-hitting and informational news it may start the pendulum swing back to good journalism. We can all certainly hope so.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Inside Scoop of the News Business, Oct. 13 2002
Par Un client
As a journalism student, I feel that this book fully explains how the news industry works, highlighting many examples from both print and broadcast journalism. However, sometimes the authors gave too many examples about certain issues, making the information redundant. I also felt as if there were too many references to Sept. 11th. While that date was a key date in history for excellent reporting, the authors make many references to it in different places throughout the book. Perhaps they should have simply dedicated a chapter to it instead of incorporating it into many. Overall, the book was interesting to read, just redundant at times.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Promoting Spin Over Protecting Public Trust Got Media!, Mai 5 2002
The authors, are two of the finest journalists who finally see the same warnings that others like Camille Paglia, Bernard Goldberg, Ralph Nader, and William Kennedy, have written about for years. After reading the book, I have only one problem, they blame profits, corporations and other priorities instead of blaming their colleagues of confusion. What is sad is that the writers do identify some of the problems but not all. They should have read Lynne V. Cheney's "Telling the Truth : Why Our Culture and Our Country Have Stopped Making Sense--And What We Can Do About It." Along with Keith Windschuttle," The Killing of History: How Literary Critics and Social Theorists are Murdering Our Past," And "The Conspiracy of Ignorance: The Failure of American Public Schools," by Martin L. Gross. All reveal the genuine roots to our media's factual demise. Up until the threaten Impeachment of President Nixon and the actual Impeachment of President Clinton, I always found print journalism far more accurate than the electronic media. Now I seldom read any major papers because of the horrible bias and promotion of spin that destroy creditability. Worse, I do not miss them, which actually scares me more than satisfies my judgement was correct. The book points out our media are just private companies' run by private individuals with private schema to maintain the status quo over protecting the public trust. I can recall a few examples of total bias. I still recall how four women from National Organization for Women, (N.O.W.), protest an opposing view with front-page coverage. Then ignore thousands from the Concern Women of America, (C.W.A.) who often had better arguments and solutions to the same problems. I still respect both organizations but the media chose bias over substantive debate now America's single mothers number over 25%! Another instances of bitter fruits for prop up spins are James Carville and Paul Begala. Both outright said Clinton was not lying for years. In the end, they were wrong for misleading the public. I have a high regard for them, but the media should have been avoided using their comments on other issues for awhile, due to their proven false spins. The media rewards this kind of double-speaking. Even worst illustrations are how Reuters actually tried to call people who kill innocent children freedom fighters, how CNN hired a Nude TV Actress to report news, and how the Boston Globe protected liberal plagiarists. And how can PBS in good faith promote Bill Moyer the inventor of the first political "Attack Smear Ads" without sullying our political practices? Even more heartbreaking is that all they ever had to do was be fair, accurate and provide both sides of major issue. They thought they were being paid to improve society instead of reporting the truth and now actually just got themselves. In this day of Internet Competition, global competition, and paid spin-doctors, the media promotes lying more than searching for the truth. As the book shows, our educated media tycoons, journalists and pundits actually contribute to creating an uneducated public who cares more about endorsing studio wrestling, overpaid athletes, and drug induced musicians. Americas' Internet superhighways are now being wasted because our children are on uneducational bicycles as the world becomes even more competitive and dangerous. The experts say we have only ten years to fix our educational institutions. One way to do it, is for the media to start telling the truth, fostering real public debates by checking the real facts and exposing those who are paid to confuse, abuse and create chaos. I admire these authors for finally writing about the obvious no matter how late they have arrived. Just as they thought they were blazing trails of truth, they look down and see only a beaten path because of former bias.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Decline of the Media, Avril 22 2002
Par Un client
Another book about how the quality of news is going down the tubes. Well-written and well researched, it blames the dumbing-down of news product on an ever-more-competitive scramble for high profits in the face of fragmenting readership.
Like other such books, it raises important questions that remain unanswered: Are people less interested in news because news is getting dumber... or is the news getting dumber because people have become less interested in news? Why don't news providers lose audience for dumbing down... and gain audience from raising the bar? Will we be empowered by new media and news-on-demand to demand (and get) good journalism, and avoid (and punish) bad journalism? Or will corporate consolidation continue to undermine standards for news in a race to the lowest common denominator? The authors detail the well-known condition of today's media. But what now?
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
The Decline of Quality Journalism, Mars 8 2002
Leonard Downie and Robert Kaiser have written a book that describes what is wrong with American journalism. Those who have observed the media during the last 15 to 20 years have noted disturbing trends: 1. News that seems more like entertainment than real news; 2. A decline in the quality and quantity of real hard news stories in papers and t.v news.; 3. More stories about actors, sports figures, and celebrities; 4. News that seems more like a paid promotion by a corporation than news.The authors tell us why this has occurred. Essentially, many newspapers, t.v. stations, and radio stations have been taken over by huge corporations like Gannett or AOL-Time Warner. These corporations are fixed upon obtaining a certain bottomline profit margin from each station year by year. To this end, they have limited space for hard news stories, laid off thousands of reporters, increased entertainment type features, and do little investigative reporting (which is expensive). They have also raised advertising rates and in some situations, involved themselves with inappropriate relationships with businesses who advertise in their mediums. The authors point out through a number of examples, exactly why good journalism is important to a community. Solid news coverage on a state/national/international level has helped inform the American people of complex realities, enabling them to make sound decisions in the Representative Democracy in which we live. It has helped cracked scandals like Watergate wide open. It has helped states realize and rectify problems in their educational and social systems. It has explained much of the current problems with Muslims and Osama Bin Laden, so that we can understand what occurred on September 11, 2001 better. The authors are wrong about some things. I noted that both Downie and Kaiser started in journalism in the sixties, before the advent of the computer age. Perhaps, this is what makes them hostile to presentation of news stories with fancy computer graphics, maps, and other audio/visual effects. I don't see this as a problem. I think an authoritative news cast could make use of both good reporting and the technologies of the information age that allow us to make better presentations and allow for more effective communication with an audience. While I largely agree with the authors, I also note this problem. The term "news" and "newsworthy" is a very subjective term. Any two people may experience serious disagreement about what is a legitimate "news story" and what is not. For example, a president having sex with his intern may or not may not be a news story. Perhaps, the line is when you can show that his doing so is somehow interfering with his official duties. By arguing that the media needs to do a better job reporting news, and complaining about particular types of reporting,the authors in essence conclude that some matters are not "newsworthy". The authors opinion on this maybe no better or worse than our own. What I found most discouraging about the book is that the solutions are going to be very difficult. Things have reached the point they have because of demands for profitability by huge multi-national corporations. Its a very involved process and will be difficult to rectify. In the end, the authors simply make the point that if the American public wants good journalism it has the power to demand it, by refusing to watch or read poor journalism. That action will send the greatest message of all to those who are in charge.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
Interesting but not especially surprising, Mars 1 2002
Downie and Kaiser's book is an excellently written and entertaining look at how the print and electronic news media operate today. The trouble is that the thesis is old news, even if the examples with which the authors illustrate it aren't. The general message the authors want to get across is, alas, all too well known: too few mega-bucked families own too many newspapers and TV stations, marketing is increasingly the tail that wags the news and editorial dog, politicians manipulatively lie to reporters whom they've cultivated, advertizers buy "info-mercials" that the media masquerade as documentaries. This is stuff that's common lore. Where Downie and Kaiser shine is in illustrating these points with behind-the-scenes anecdotes pulled from their joint years at the "Washington Post." Especially interesting is their discussion of the "Post's" greatest investigative reporting victory, the series on cops who killed civilians in Washington DC., and the "Post's" dropping of the ball on Irangate. There's a certain degree of self-congratulation in the book--the two authors clearly think that the "Washington Post" is unrivaled in the editorial integrity department--but it's difficult to deny that a good case can be made for the kudos they give their paper. A bit more reflection on how media became the mess it is today, as well as how to fix it, would've strengthened the book. Still, one does get the gratifying sense that Downie and Kaiser are two old-school journalists who can be trusted. Unhappily, one also gets the sense that they're members of a dying breed.
Aidez d'autres clients à trouver les commentaires les plus utiles
Ce commentaire vous a-t-il été utile ?
|
|
|
|
|
|
|
Ce produit
|
|
CDN$ 16.95 CDN$ 12.37
Habituellement expédié sous 3 à 5 semaines
| |
|
|
|
Accueil Amazon
