Belly you are being too kind.

It is always "literary" people who gravitate to journalism. Words they can handle, but understanding how things work, [be they mechanical, or states], is beyond most of them. That is why the good ones are so few.

In the old days they went through the copy boy system, where only the more practical survived, but today they do a fairy floss degree, then start believing they know which way is up.

My lady can get annoyed with me sometimes, when watching news on TV. I will groan, & say something like, I'll bet she/he says "this" next. What annoys her is that she has not seen through the gobbledygook the correspondent has been sprouting, or where they are going with it. She hates it when I am right.

It's not only on OLO that one can get into trouble talking sense.

The media provides instant coverage of social events and social changes, ranging from news and opinions to fads and changes. It offers role models, viewpoints and even glimpses of lifestyles that people might otherwise never have access to. Through the media, children can learn about courtroom lawyers, couwboys, police detectives, or even such improbable characters as Superman, Batman, E.T., and Rambo. The fact that many of these images are not very realistic does not necessarily lessen their influence. Through media advertising, too, the young learn about their future roles as consumers in the marketplace and about the high value the society places on youth, success, beauty, and materialism. Changing social norms and values are quickly reflected in the media and may be readily adopted by people who might not otherwise be exposed to them. The rapid speed of new trends in youth culture, for example, depends heavily on such media as popular records, television, FM radio, youth-oriented magazines, and of course movies. The most influential medium is probably television. Some critics charge that the medium actually
impedes learning by hindering the acquisition of reading skills and encouraging intellectual passivity, but these claims are difficult to prove or disprove. Also, although television does bring a flood of information into the home, much of it is highly selective or as you point out - distorted. News programs, for example, tend to feature the visually exciting or emotionally moving stories that draw large viewing audiences - even if this means omitting issues that are more sober but perhaps significant also. Fictional portrayals, too, often overrepresent some categories of the population, such as the wealthy or physicians, lawyers, detectives, the police, and underrepresent others, such as the aged or minorities. Of course individuals are also influenced by many other agents of socialization - religious groups, youth organisations, and later in life, such agents as corporations or other employers etc. People tend to see things from a viewpoint of subjectivity - they interpret things based on personal values and experiences and inevitably like anyone else, will be guilty of some measure of bias.

The problem with so many of these people in the thread is that they actually demand news services with outright polarized views of the "left" and "right" so they don't feel threatened by alternative viewpoints too profoundly in their day to day lives.

For example, that David Hicks documentary I mentioned showed the photos and letters of his Jihad ventures as potential evidence to his guilt, along with interviews of various relevant people to camp X-ray, as well as his parents- which is exactly what I would percieve as 'rounded' coverage of every angle that could be covered on the issue. I ultimately decided this was compelling evidence that Hicks was indeed a Jihadi, and despite the evidence of his dad being sad and Gitmo being unconstitutional, that it was best NOT to help him- while others may have decided otherwise being given a full story.

But it seems that comments in papers and online were not happy with it because it was simply not "left" enough or "right" enough, because I suppose some people simply are not smart enough to cope with facing all angles of a story and need to be wrapped in cotton wool and told things that they like to hear.

I suppose that's probably why Assange telling people things they might not like to hear is so unpopular among some of us?

King Hazza has pretty much voiced my feelings on this issue.

Freedom of the press implies that none of will always read or hear what we want to in terms of matching our ideals.

As for Assange it was not wrong or right to air his question. The show gave the PM and Assange air time and opportunity to respond - what could be fairer than that.

Just a thought, Lexi.

>>The rapid speed of new trends in youth culture, for example, depends heavily on such media as popular records, television, FM radio, youth-oriented magazines, and of course movies. The most influential medium is probably television.<<

My current experience of one teenage son still at home is that he will spend very little time indeed in font of the TV screen, but a substantially greater amount of time in front of his computer screen. There he will spend some 80% of his time in online (i.e. chat) conversation with friends, and 80% of his time (these activities can of course be simultaneous) on his favourite web sites. Which, almost certainly, will have some form of forum/discussion/blog interaction as well.

Rather than sit in front of one TV screen and watch a "broadcast", he will have anywhere between four and ten windows open at any one time, and be dividing his time between them.

I suspect strongly that the influence of television on the young may be rapidly waning; I know that in my house, it has already all but disappeared.

Pericles,

You could be right. My reference was on the whole - to younger children.