Lying in the News Media [Archive] - Comic Book Resources Forums

View Full Version : Lying in the News Media

Inkthinker

06-08-2005, 11:56 PM

Dennis

06-09-2005, 06:08 AM

there were a lot of people in the news who are strongly suggesting and just outright saying that tom cruise's relationship with katie holmes is a sham. even bill hemmer, the morning news guy on cnn! there was analysis of his appearance on oprah, questioning his sanity. do we know any of this is true? poor tom. :(

bartl

06-09-2005, 06:12 AM

I'm curious to know what people think of the fact that it's not actually illegal for news agencies and reporters to lie or misrepresent the news (it's merely a violation of FCC policy, and subject to fine). As a result of this, news employees are not protected from retaliation under whistleblower statues, effectively guaranteeing that few, if any, people in the chain of news reporting will feel they're able to take action if they're ordered to intentionally misrepresent or outright lie about the news.
OK. I don't even think there should be fines for non-broadcast (i.e. cable/sat) news.

What you are describing is nothing new. There used to be dozens of daily newspapers in any major cities, and a bunch of those were semi-daily. Many people know the phrase, "Extra! Extra! Read all about it!" but few remember what an "extra edition" is, and its significance. People chose their papers based on point of view.

When broadcast radio started becoming popular, it was realized that some control was necessary for the new medium, or else competing transmissions on the same wavelength would virtually guarantee that nobody could listen to anything. The FCC was created on the basis that the airwaves belonged to the public at large, assigning exclusive rights to certain frequencies. When television became available, the FCC decided that making a fortune on radio frequencies justified making a mint on TV frequencies.

Somehow, this principle was forgotten when cable and sattelite made the number of possible transmitters much, much higher. In spite of carefully worked out agreements between cable companies and municipalities, the FCC jumped in, in their best Alexander Haig fashion, saying, "I'm in charge! I'm in charge!" (to the conservatives out there, yes, I DO know the whole story) and the courts, ever ready to increase the power of the government, didn't tell them, "No, you aren't." The FCC generously told the cable companies that they no longer had to regulate the prices they had promised to regulate in return for being given cut-rates for digging up the municipal streets (hey, anybody else can compete, by paying full price). All these contracts were tossed in the garbage. And the FCC got the power to regulate content, including having secret rules, which, if broken, can result in massive fines with no appeal.

In the meantime, the availability of television news made newspapers less and less popular. After all, to paraphrase Barbie, "Reading is hard!" Niche newspapers, catering to specific viewpoints, just weren't popular. Large corporations started buying up newspapers, attempting to appeal to the broadest possible audience. Instead of overtly pushing their political point of view, they started being more subtle about it, in most cases, at least (a notable exception being the Rupert Murdoch papers, which went to the left or the right, whichever caused more erections among their audiences. Mostly to the right. Which shows that conservatives are NOT anti-sex).

Another little bump in the newspile took place in the early 70's. Now, here's something that most people here will not remember; even a lot of people who are my age, but didn't follow the media news might not remember it. On network television, news was something they carried to keep their licenses, since the FCC insisted that they actually do something to serve the communities in which they resided. The news department was always a money loser, and was not expected to make money. News specials were mainly for public relations. In the late 60's, the three networks (yes, there were only three in those days. At one point, there were four, but ABC, who made some early deals with Disney, managed to knock Dumont off the air) experimented with newsmagazine shows. Two of them are long forgotten (I THINK that NBC's was FIRST TUESDAY, so named because it was shown on the second Monday of every month). One, the very first one, as a matter of fact, was CBS's 60 MINUTES. That survived only by being moved to Sundays at 6PM, where ratings were so low that ANYTHING would be an improvement, and it didn't lose TOO much money. And, besides, it made the FCC very happy.

But then, the FCC decided that the networks had too much power. So (and I'm not going to look up the exact years, but it was around 1970 or so), they decided that "prime time", where the networks took over the airwaves, would no longer be from 7:30 to 11:00 (yes, at one time there was network programming at 7:30). It would be from 8:00 to 11:00, with local stations providing programs that would serve the community between 7:30 and 8:00. And the local stations responded by airing repeats of network programs during that period, which made the powers that be at the FCC say, "Oops."

Well, after a year or two of that, the FCC came up with a more complex plan. The local stations had to put up original programming in the 7:30-8:00 slot, and the networks would be given back the 7:00-8:00 slot on Sundays, but they could only use it for family-oriented or news programming. Remember, at this time, news was still a guaranteed money-loser for the networks. So the networks put in what they considered family-oriented programming (using the time-honored tradition that "family oriented" meant that NOBODY liked it). However, the stations that carried CBS were upset. CBS had Sundays from 6-7 (60 Minutes), and now they were going to have from 7-8, as well. So many local stations pre-empted whatever family oriented garbage CBS put in, and replaced it with, well, other garbage.

So, CBS saw that whatever they put into that slot was going to lose money. They had a choice of losing the slot, or losing 60 Minutes. They took a third route. Since they were going to lose money in that slot anyway, why not put in 60 Minutes, and see if they could cut their losses. Well, the audiences took a look at "Happy Little Moosies" or whatever was playing on the other networks, and decided that even news would be better than that. And 60 Minutes suddenly shot to the number 1 slot in television, to the surprise of pretty much everybody. And news suddenly became a money-maker, and has been ever since, increasing the news presence on television, and further eroding the print media audience.

Now, when Reagan became President, he decided to take a more laissez-faire attitude. Also, cable was becoming bigger, and the choices of programming was more extensive. Up until this point, the FCC had something called the "fairness doctrine". The principle was that, since only a limited number of people had access to the airways, there was a danger of political points of view being cut off. So, any time a station aired the opinions of its owners, the station had to provide free, equal time to those who opposed that point of view. In any case, the FCC said, "You don't have to do that any more", which allowed all sorts of political opinions to air which weren't allowed before. What fun.

Finally, in 1994, the Federal Government got out of the Internet business, allowing commercial use of the Interenet, and we ALL know about that. But, between cable and the Internet, the costs of fielding newsmedia suddenly went wayyyyyyyyyyyy down, and we were back to the point where there was a large number of news media, each one having its own opinion.

Which is, more or less, what the authors of the Constitution had in mind when they put in the 1st Amendment.

So, don't get in a snit of people have the ability to say things you don't like on the air. Just change the channel; you'll find someone saying things you DO like.

blast_front

06-09-2005, 07:29 AM

Another important development in TV news evolution occurred in the late 70's/early 80's, when ABC decided to make it's news division profitable. As Bart pointed out, news was seen as a public service obligation on the part of the networks, and news programs were produced at a loss. ABC attempted to turn the situation around by putting their ABC Sports go-to guy, Roone Arledge, in charge of their news division.

What came of this was the "news you can use" trend. In depth hard news and international coverage was cut back in favor of slicker features, celebrity info, and other fluff. The shift achieved pretty decent ratings results, and a race to the bottom ensued. Twenty-five years later, we've got "Paris Hilton's engagement ring--a first look!" as leader, and "Four Americans killed in Iraq" given 30 seconds and buried fifteen minutes into the broadcast.

The book's a bit dated now, but Todd Gitlin's Inside Prime Time covers this transformation in detail.

bartl

06-09-2005, 09:08 AM

The book's a bit dated now, but Todd Gitlin's Inside Prime Time covers this transformation in detail.
I'll have to read it; believe it or not (and I suspect you will believe it because of the probable inaccuracies in it), that piece I wrote was entirely from memory, based on following the media as it happened, as opposed to any research. For example, I used to watch 60 Minutes almost every Sunday when it was on at 6..

blast_front

06-09-2005, 09:35 AM

believe it or not (and I suspect you will believe it because of the probable inaccuracies in it), that piece I wrote was entirely from memory

That's cool. Mine was (?mis-) remembered from a Media & Popular Culture course I took over ten years ago. I think I spent more class time writing/revising a play I was working on than I spent actually paying attention to the professor. Come to think of it, I'm not sure if that info came from Gitlin's book, or one of the fifty-odd photocopied articles we had to read.

My undergrad mentor weeps.

Inkthinker

06-09-2005, 10:42 AM

So, don't get in a snit of people have the ability to say things you don't like on the air. Just change the channel; you'll find someone saying things you DO like.

It's not about things that I don't like... I have no problems with changing channels or even *gasp!* turning it off.

I'm talking about an institution (news reporting) which (I thought) had an obligation to serve the public trust by reporting information in a fair and accurate way. Certainly I believe that the overwhelming majority of Americans think that their news sources are obligated to tell them the truth, and so it's no wonder we're a nation of conflicting views when half of us are being told one thing and the other half another, and both is certain that their news consists of accurate information, reported responsibly.

I understand that there are shades of "fair and accurate", but at some point a lie is a lie. When the Fox reporters here in Tampa (I can only remember Akre's name, sadly) were fired for blowing the whistle on their bosses when they were ordered to knowingly lie about the effects of Bovine Growth Hormone (this is not in question, but actually a matter of record), they should have been protected for doing the right thing, but weren't (and it sent a message to every other reporter out there). And in this case, O'Reilly has distorted a person's statements, and then outright turned around and parroted that person's stated views as his own. That goes beyond political viewpoints and into something much more shameful.

WatsonGlenn

06-09-2005, 12:13 PM

Shouldn't it be illegal for the organizations that inform the public as to current events to misrepresent the facts, espescially with intent? Shouldn't such acts bear severe repercussions?

Caveat emptor - (Let the buyer beware) Govenemnt should not be in the business of making sure reporters tell the truth.

Inkthinker

06-09-2005, 12:17 PM

Alright, so not the government... they're not exactly reliable when it comes to truth anyhow.

But not SOME sort of oversight, some sort of process by which reporters are encouraged to speak fairly and honestly because it's in their own best interests to see that facts are passed along in an accurate fashion? There are such things as facts... it's a fact that Akre and her husband were fired for standing up to FOX. It's a fact that O'Reilly's show edited remarks from a US Senator, changing the meaning of his statement, and then claimed that Senator's viewpoint as his own.

Because right now, it doesn't seem to me that it's in any reporting organizations best interest to step out of line... and so of course they don't, and we as a nation end up misinformed and easily led by the nose.

No-one has a problem with this? Am I off my rocker for thinking that this is a problem that demands a solution?

Yes, I know, it's been happening for years... does that make it somehow OKAY? Just because it's been going on for years doesn't make it right.

mjm1231

06-09-2005, 12:34 PM

I'm no lawyer, but it seems to me that that type of thing would be covered by slander and libel laws. The problem is that most of the candidates themselves use the same techniques to get themselves elected.

WatsonGlenn

06-09-2005, 03:47 PM

I take everything I see on TV, radio and the Internent with a grain of salt. Everyone has a point of view they want to put forward, evne NPR. Too many, so called reporters, allow that point of view to color the way they present the news.

O'Reilly seems overly commercial to me. He is constantly selling his teeshirts and coffee cups and books. He is unfair to his guests. He always says he will give his guest the last word but then after they have their last word he makes his final comment, so how did they have the last word?

The fact that he calls his show the No Spin Zone is a joke. Spin is all he does. I would respect his more if he simply said I am going to put forward my point of view like Rush does. Take it or leave it.

I know Sean Hannity personally and he is a nice guy but the Fox news channel seems like amature hour to me.

Their morning news show is embarasingly bad. They sit around a small table and laugh and bitch for an hour. They are not funny and they don't seem very smart. Its Howard Stern without the breasts. Fox does have the best looking female reporters though.

bartl

06-09-2005, 09:02 PM

I'm talking about an institution (news reporting) which (I thought) had an obligation to serve the public trust by reporting information in a fair and accurate way.
Well, you thought incorrectly.

Inkthinker

06-09-2005, 10:19 PM

Well, you thought incorrectly.

Well, yeah, obviously...

But don't you think that the great majority of people think that the news is at least in some way expected to report things honestly?

Okay, granted, O'Reilly isn't a reporter, he's a commentator. Strike his shenanigans from the point of the moment... Akre and her husband WERE reporters, though, and were fired for attempting to blow the whistle on their bosses (but an appeals court determined that since their employer wasn't breaking the law by ordering them to lie, they weren't protected under whistleblower statutes).

There's something very, very wrong with the way the news is reported if we have to take everything with a grain of salt, wondering whether or not an item isn't just spun, but possibly just plain false, and known to be false.

Steven Grant

06-10-2005, 07:40 AM

But don't you think that the great majority of people think that the news is at least in some way expected to report things honestly?

A recent study by the Pew Research Center indicates that around 45% of Americans believe none or next to none of what they hear on or read in the news.

Inkthinker

06-10-2005, 09:24 AM

I didn't mean that the great majority of them DO believe that the news tells the truth... I mean that the majority believe that they're EXPECTED to do so, people feel that's their role.

Is that not their role? What exactly is the role of the news media? I mean, I thought it was the dissemination of information, but clearly that's no longer the case if there's neither an expectation nor obligation for them to do so, and potentially great risk involved if they do.

-EDIT-

Hah... ain't this topical. I was perusing the news this morning and found that Gallup just release a poll (http://www.editorandpublisher.com/eandp/news/article_display.jsp?vnu_content_id=1000954852) stating that confidence in television and newspapers has continued to drop to an all-time low.

Briareos

06-10-2005, 02:27 PM

Book Nasty

06-10-2005, 05:49 PM

Briareos

06-10-2005, 07:27 PM

Uh, hello??? Did you even read the rest of this thread? It was started by bringing up an example of O'Reilly disorting facts, namely what was said by Senator Biden, and then claiming Biden's opinion, which was omitted, to be his own. Even Watson Glenn wasn't defending O'Reilly and Fox. And furthermore, despite whatever you've bought into, there is no overall media bias. Different media outlets, whether they're TV, radio, or print, are funded by different sources and therefore have different biases. Some to the left and some to the right. Fox News is quite obviously to the extreme right. The "Factor" is as much of a "no spin zone" as a dreidel factory.

I never said FOX was never wrong but people go into a opinion show knowing what their seeing are opinions and maybe a streaching of the truth here or there. But the point was that CNN or NYT never seems to take any real flack for being wrong as often as they are.

WatsonGlenn

06-11-2005, 07:59 AM

Different media outlets, whether they're TV, radio, or print, are funded by different sources and therefore have different biases. Some to the left and some to the right.

Talk radio is clearly dominated by conservatives except for NPR which is anti-Republican. But except for Fox I cannot think of a TV news provider that is conservative in it's leanings.

The "Factor" is as much of a "no spin zone" as a dreidel factory.

Cute, I like that.

The Mirrorball Man

06-11-2005, 08:15 AM

I think everybody agrees that reporters should only report the truth. The pure, unedited, non-biased truth.

Unfortunately, as Pablo Picasso said (I don't remember the exact quote): "If one hundred painters painted the Truth, you'd end up with one hundred very different paintings".

The problem is, outside the realm of theoretical science, there is no such thing as the Truth. Even proven facts are subject to interpretation. Nothing exists in a vacuum, and everyone has an agenda and a point of view. The social landscape is a wild jungle, and journalists' only hope to offer some auhenticity to their readers is to identify their sources, explain the larger context of their stories, and acknowledge their own bias.

I know, however, that that is not really what you're talking about. You're talking about reporters deliberately lying to their readers to support their agenda. That is of course a terrible thing to do, but coming up with a law against that would result in the courts coming up with an official definition of the Truth, which in my opinion would do even more damage to our freedom of expression.

Inkthinker

06-11-2005, 12:19 PM

I think if you presented a series of well-established scientific studies stating that BGH was harmful to human health, and then showed that your employers ordered you to go on the air and say that BGH is not harmful to human health, that would be a pretty clear-cut case of untruth.

If the courts can't determine some type of veracity, then how do they convict people of crimes? Evidence can be presented to determine if a person makes a statement that they know to be untrue... that's how people get convicted of perjury.

The Mirrorball Man

06-11-2005, 12:59 PM

If the courts can't determine some type of veracity, then how do they convict people of crimes? Evidence can be presented to determine if a person makes a statement that they know to be untrue... that's how people get convicted of perjury.
I didn't think of that approach. That would be possible, if not entirely practical. Perjury usually occurs in very controlled situations, when people are under oath, etc. Journalism is much more complex and it involves more people, so this approach wouldn't be as effective. But anyway, I guess it would be possible.
Of course, there's a downside to it: if you want to expose the whole process of information gathering out in the open, that means that reporters will no longer have access to confidential sources, and that's where the real juice of journalism comes from.

Inkthinker

06-11-2005, 07:35 PM

"Confidential sources" is being eliminated anyway. A lot of editors and producers now say they won't allow a story to be reported based on a "confidential source" for fear of PR fiascoes.

FunkyGreenJerusalem

06-11-2005, 10:05 PM

Under current laws, if O'Reilly was found to have intentionally misrepresented the facts, he's merely subject to fines. And no-one in the organization that prepares and broadcasts The O'Reilly Factor could testify on the matter without fear of retaliation by their employer.

Shouldn't it be illegal for the organizations that inform the public as to current events to misrepresent the facts, espescially with intent? Shouldn't such acts bear severe repercussions?

If you've read Al Franken "Lies, and the lying liars who tell them" (the books funny stuff) or seen the documentary OUTFOXXED you'll see that suing O'Reilly for lying/slander would be hard.

Jermey Glick - the kid who's father died in the 9/11 attack, and O'reilly went nuts at for signing an anti-war petition, and repetitivley told Glick to shut up, and then in subsequent episodes denied he had and constantly lied about what Glick had actually said in the episode - contacted Franken to say if he could persue the matter in court.

Franken contacted his lawyer who had defended him against a Fox lawsuit over claims in his book (all of which he could either prove or were obvious satire).
The lawyer said that O'Reilly distorts the truth and lies so often that it could be argued that he doesn't realise he's doing it.
He's done it so often that he has a pattern of behaviour that shows he could be a pathological liar unable to tell truth from lie, and hence couldn't be sued for it.

The Mirrorball Man

06-12-2005, 12:19 AM

"Confidential sources" is being eliminated anyway. A lot of editors and producers now say they won't allow a story to be reported based on a "confidential source" for fear of PR fiascoes.
Really? That's a cause for alarm. It means that the American media will no longer be able to report anything that might be damaging to the government or big corporations.

bartl

06-12-2005, 05:31 AM

"Confidential sources" is being eliminated anyway. A lot of editors and producers now say they won't allow a story to be reported based on a "confidential source" for fear of PR fiascoes.
The PR fiascos that have taken place recently have not been due to reliance on confidential sources, but on SOLE reliance on confidential sources, even when the means for double checking have been readily available. While this was not necessarily the case in every story, a desire to believe a story can blind someone to improbabilities that need double-checking. Frankly, I can tell you the reason why this has happened more to left-of-center stories than right-of-center stories in two words: Matt Drudge. The right wing has a mechanism for spreading the story while the facts are being checked. If the left had a Matt Drudge type, then stories like a memo typed in the early 70's in Microsoft Word or toilets capable of flushing down Korans would have been spread around without reflecting on major news reporters.

fumetti

06-23-2005, 08:37 AM

Caveat emptor - (Let the buyer beware) Govenemnt should not be in the business of making sure reporters tell the truth.

Or politicians either, apparently.

If it's okay for reporters to lie, why can't we ALL lie? Why was Martha Stewart convicted? Why was Clinton impeached? (Right wingers love liars who lie for THEM, but they love hypocrisy even more.)

bartl

06-23-2005, 09:01 AM

If it's okay for reporters to lie, why can't we ALL lie? Why was Martha Stewart convicted? Why was Clinton impeached? (Right wingers love liars who lie for THEM, but they love hypocrisy even more.)
Actually, neither one should probably have happened.

They were not just lying, they were lying under specific circumstances. Martha Stewart lied to federal investigators, when she had the right to say nothing at all. However, the federal investigators lied to HER, and her responses were based on those lies. The government was out to get a prominent corporate crook, and she was a convenient target.

Clinton lied under oath, but about a matter that was not material to the case. He should not have been impeached, and he should not have been disbarred. The question should not have even been allowed; his lawyers should have objected based on irrelevency. Mind you, we all would have suspected that there was something going on, but, hell, we all suspected that anyway.

fumetti

06-23-2005, 09:10 AM

See here's something that bug's me people are always complaining about Fox News but whenever anyone tries to list mistakes for the most part its just them mentioning O'riley or Hannity giving their opinion on something. Its not the actual news content of their shows (the little bumpers they do at the top of every hour and their hard news shows they do).

Fox intentionally blends facts with opinion. In fact, Murdoch openly says that facts ARE opinion. Fox's talking heads are always passing off their distorted opinions as facts. Take O'Lielly's blathering about gay marriage causing the collapse of the institution of marriage in Sweden. A complete pile of dogshit straight from his anus/mouth. But he passes it off as fact. This is the M.O. of Fox.

And my view is the best way to combat speach that is factually wrong is to fight it with more speach.

No, I'd say the best way to end food poisoning is to stop the sale of tainted food. Simply selling more food doesn't stop the rottenness.

Also anyone who truely believes that the "Fairness Doctrine" was invented to do anything other then silence conservative viewpoints is either ignorant or a liar.

The Fairness Doctrine assured that equal time would be givin within the same "news" source. If it had the effect of cutting out conservative speech, then it's because there the conservatives were getting way too much coverage to begin with.

It's pretty obvious what the Fairness Doctrine accomplished: radio shows such as Limbaugh and O'Lielly didn't exist until (1) stations were allowed to run right-wing propaganda for hours uncontested, and (2) right-wing companies could buy up all the stations to make sure their propaganda would be broadcast everywhere all the time. The Fairness Doctrine limited Big Money's ability to control content.

Thats the problem liberals and leftists have now. As soon as someone is allowed open fair debate with their ideas they lose badly. Thats why you have such railing and calls for the fairness doctrine and regulating speach from the left.

I've debated plenty with people who get their "news" from the likes of Fox, and they not only can't win--they don't know any of the facts! (There are studies showing that right-wing listeners believe they're the most informed when they actually are the least informed.) All they can do is parrot the simplistic lies and distortions fed them 24/7.

Regarding Saddam, terrorism, and Iraq, FoxNews watchers were pathetically ignorant of any of the facts. Why? Because FN never bothered to tell them any. They just blathered abstractly about "freedom" and "threats."

Liberals want the Fairness Doctrine back because the "hands-off" approach has led to big right-wing money controlling all the major media for their own agenda. An agenda, BTW, that is based on massive lies that could easily have been exposed if we in fact had any kind of balance in the media. (FoxNews's idea of a balanced debate is a right-wing host, an extreme right-wing guest, and a not-so-extreme or even Democratic guest who all pretty much agree.)

No matter how much Brent Bozell and others demonstrate how the media is biased towards the left and liberals no one on the conservative side is calling for any sort of regulation about it.

Well, DUH!!! No points for your detective skills, I'm afraid. Why would the cons want to bring in regulations? It's regulations that produced the Fairness Doctrine which limited their control of "news."

The cons aren't trying to fix the media because they know where the bias really is: it's conservative conservative conservative. More to the point, it's corporate (which is conservative in nature).

Just compare the exhausting coverage of every tiny Clinton scandal (they even dragged on about a lousy haircut), and the SCANT coverage of the MASSIVE Bush scandals. Lies about sex get the "O.J." treatment. Lies about war get the "you're a traitor for mentioning it" treatment.

If you're under any delusions that the media is liberal, then just hand your titles and deeds over to the Republican Party because, man, they really OWN your ass.

fumetti

06-23-2005, 09:14 AM

Really? That's a cause for alarm. It means that the American media will no longer be able to report anything that might be damaging to the government or big corporations.

Ah, grasshoppah, you have snatched the pebble from Murdoch's hand!

fumetti

06-23-2005, 09:39 AM

Yep, I do have THE solution to the problem.

We need HEAVY regulation of information that is branded "news."*

Every story labeled "news" must be subject to very high standards in terms of sourcing and delivery.** (And no, reporters can't get away with passing off an unsubtantiated claim just because they're quoting someone else as saying it. The quoted source must also withstand similar scrutiny.)

Stories that don't meet this standard CANNOT be labeled as "news." Nor may it run un-labeled next to a "news" story. Further, any non-"news" segment running in the same program (or paper) must be labeled as something other than "news." (And no tricks such as labeling gossip as "info" or other synonyms of "news" are permissable.) Any program following a "news" program must be identified as something other than "news," so as to prevent any accidental or intentional confusion that the two programs are related.

This serves a valid purpose. One, it lets the viewer/reader know that the material labeled "news" is legally bound to be compiled according to a certain reliability standard. And two, it allows networks such as FoxNews run all the lie-based content they wish, just so long as they don't try to pass it off as "news." (Of course, this means anyone wishing to label the entire network as a "news" channel will have to adhere to these standards 24/7.)

I'm not against all the gossip-mongering programming, nor am I trying to end any of the sleazy punditry that goes on. I just want it all separated. And no, this won't guarantee that every "fact" on the "news" will be presented 100% accurately. But disagreements on fact should be of the "raising spending 1% instead of 3% is/isn't a "cut"" variety, not the "Democrats hate God because they believe in civil rights" tripe.

*Actually, it doesn't have to be the word "news." But there needs to be a label that is readily identified as factual information adhering to certain standards. This label would be required pretty much everywhere. I use "news" because it is already generally accepted as being fact-based information.

**There's an alternative method that might work just as effectively. And that's to create a "certification" system. Any program wishing to be "certified" will be held to the conditions above. This alternative is voluntary, but we all know it won't take long before all the news programs will want the certification. CNN can call themselves the most trusted name in news, but that hyperbole will become an (even bigger) embarrasment once their competition can claim "certified" higher standards.

WatsonGlenn

06-23-2005, 10:48 AM

We need HEAVY regulation of information that is branded "news."*

Who do you trust enough to be in charge of that "regulation?" The DNC?

WatsonGlenn

06-23-2005, 10:51 AM

There are studies showing that right-wing listeners believe they're the most informed when they actually are the least informed.

Is this one of your "facts?"

Wig of Doom

06-23-2005, 11:19 AM

Is this one of your "facts?"

Well, it's a fact (at least that Republicans are less well-informed). See

www.pipa.org/OnlineReports/Pres_Election_04/Report10_21_04.pdf

for example. A bit of googling will reveal other surveys.

WatsonGlenn

06-23-2005, 12:11 PM

Thats not a fact but your post is an example of how biased points of view and skewed information can be presented as truth and fact when in reality they are not.

There are three kinds of lies.

Lies
Damn lies
Statistics

bartl

06-23-2005, 02:43 PM

Yep, I do have THE solution to the problem.

We need HEAVY regulation of information that is branded "news."*
Getting rid of rights is a two-edged sword. Toss out the 1st Amendment, and you get the religious right working to turn this country into a theocracy.

Steven Grant

06-23-2005, 05:00 PM

Yeah, we're into "Who Watches The Watchmen?" territory on this one. The only way to remotely make the scheme work is if what constitutes "real news" is very specifically formalized as rules, and a whole system of checks and balances is put in place to ensure that no one overseeing the system -- someone has to -- can abuse, manipulate or corrupt it to the advantage of one party or another, which would require stringent penalties for abuse, manipulation or corruption, but that would require another level of enforcement and that level would be guarded against abuse, manipulation and corruption, and so on.

fumetti

06-23-2005, 07:08 PM

The only way to remotely make the scheme work is if what constitutes "real news" is very specifically formalized as rules

That's what I'm talking about.

Strict definition of what can be labeled as "news."

fumetti

06-23-2005, 07:14 PM

Getting rid of rights is a two-edged sword. Toss out the 1st Amendment, and you get the religious right working to turn this country into a theocracy.

I don't think you followed my post. I'm not restricting what can be said, just restricting labels. O'Lielly can keep on lying and distorting--FoxNews just can't label it "news." Nor can they juxtapose it with what they CAN label news in the attempt to muddy the waters.

I'm no more talking about "toss[ing] out the 1st Amendment" than any other regulation of labels (good example: food and drug industries).

fumetti

06-23-2005, 07:14 PM

Is this one of your "facts?"

It is indeed a fact. Those studies exist.

fumetti

06-23-2005, 07:16 PM

Who do you trust enough to be in charge of that "regulation?" The DNC?

No, but it would be a substantial improvement. If for no other reason than they believe in the general validity of regulations.

Inkthinker

06-23-2005, 10:07 PM

I think it's possible to back up some stories with clear and transparent facts and sources. Certainly, both the left and right should be allowed to say what they please, but when they portray what they say as fact when evidence clearly exists and can be cited to prove otherwise, then there should be penaltiies placed upon those who have misrepresented the truth. If they can't come up with equal evidence to support what they've reported, then they ought to be more careful what they tell people is "true".

I should think that if either side can present clear evidence that would stand up in a (assumed uncorrupted, which may not exist much longer the way things are looking) court of law, then they should be allowed to file some sort of suit or claim or something against the people that reported a lie as truth.

I'm not talking about mere spin, I'm talking about outright lies. I'm talking about saying BGH is not harmful when reports say that it is. I'm talking about saying that a war is about something when it's known to be about something else. This is happening more and more, and it's becoming ridiculous.

There is WAY too much misinformation being propagated by ALL sides, and it's coming to the point where no-one can believe or trust anything, and I believe that becomes a very serious problem for society as a whole.

bartl

06-24-2005, 04:25 AM

I'm no more talking about "toss[ing] out the 1st Amendment" than any other regulation of labels (good example: food and drug industries).
Freedom of manufacturing is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an area which the government has no business touching.

People never seem to want censorship for themselves. It always seems to be "other people".

"I can tell truth from lies, but I worry about other people, who, being inferior to me, can be taken in by them, so I want the government, who knows far better than the ignorant masses, to tell the people what is true and what is false."

GIve me a break.

Dennis

06-24-2005, 06:40 AM

should the media cover street crime? i mean really cover it. or should they cover it in the most shallow way possible? most people have no understanding what's going on in the streets.

fumetti

06-24-2005, 06:51 AM

Freedom of manufacturing is not specifically mentioned in the Constitution as an area which the government has no business touching.

People never seem to want censorship for themselves. It always seems to be "other people".

"I can tell truth from lies, but I worry about other people, who, being inferior to me, can be taken in by them, so I want the government, who knows far better than the ignorant masses, to tell the people what is true and what is false."

GIve me a break.

Your responses keep telling me that you don't understand what I'm saying.

I'm not advocating any limitation of what can be said. I'm pretty clear that these networks can continue saying what they're saying now.

I'm talking about how it can be packaged and labeled.

This is no less restrictive than most anything else in the Constitution. The right to free speech isn't a blank check to mouth any words at any time in any situation. Your right to free religion doesn't mean you can commit human sacrifice. Your right to bear arms doesn't include using bazookas to hunt squirrels. Your right to vote doesn't include doing so while in prison.

The precedent to regulate our Constitutional rights in the public interest has been set long ago. I'm introducing nothing new here.

WatsonGlenn

06-24-2005, 03:51 PM

It is indeed a fact. Those studies exist.

The fact that the studies exist might be a fact. The conclusions and numbers presented might not, in fact probably are not.

WatsonGlenn

06-24-2005, 03:53 PM

No, but it would be a substantial improvement. If for no other reason than they believe in the general validity of regulations.

Well, I'm against putting any one group of men in charge of defining truth.

bartl

06-24-2005, 06:48 PM

This is no less restrictive than most anything else in the Constitution. The right to free speech isn't a blank check to mouth any words at any time in any situation. Your right to free religion doesn't mean you can commit human sacrifice. Your right to bear arms doesn't include using bazookas to hunt squirrels. Your right to vote doesn't include doing so while in prison.
How about a libertarian solution: One or more private organizations whose purpose is to accredit news media?

WatsonGlenn

06-24-2005, 11:13 PM

How about a libertarian solution: One or more private organizations whose purpose is to accredit news media?

Yeah, that worked pretty good for the Comic Code Authority.

Inkthinker

06-25-2005, 05:57 AM

"I can tell truth from lies, but I worry about other people, who, being inferior to me, can be taken in by them, so I want the government, who knows far better than the ignorant masses, to tell the people what is true and what is false."

GIve me a break.

You don't understand at all.

I'm worried because I don't know tht I CAN tell the truth from lies. Neither can anyone else, unless they have evidence of some sort, either from something they know or something they hear. The way it's supposed to work, the way I once (naively) thought it worked, was that the news media was an independant organization who had a responisbility to report facts to the public so that said public could make informed, rational decisions about how to manage their lives and their society.

In a democracy, we the people are supposed to have input in the decisions of our society. An informed society makes decisions as a group entity based on information that is provided to us as a group, and if that information is correct, then it would follow that society makes decisions that benefit the whole of society in the large scale.

Now, when I watch the news, I feel that I cannot be certain of many things that they report. Is it truth, or a lie that's backed by corporate or government issues that may affect me negatively so that they can continue to act profitably? I don't know, I can't know, because I can't trust them to tell me the truth. And as a whole, society is more likely to make decisions that are wrong for us as a whole entity, because the information that we base our decisions on is flawed or false.

Inkthinker

06-25-2005, 06:07 AM

Yeah, that worked pretty good for the Comic Code Authority.

That's a nonsequiter comparison. The CCA was designed to restrain the creative potential of a literary media based largely on fictional matter. It lists a series of guidelines that comic book FICTION needed to adhere to in order to gain access to the distribution method of the period.

The news is supposed to be anything BUT fiction.

WatsonGlenn

06-25-2005, 07:23 AM

and if that information is correct, then it would follow that society makes decisions that benefit the whole of society in the large scale.

How does that follow? Can you give me an example of a large group of peope who knew the whole truth and made a decision that benifitted society as a whole rather then just themselves as individuals?

WatsonGlenn

06-25-2005, 07:24 AM

That's a nonsequiter comparison. The CCA was designed to restrain the creative potential of a literary media based largely on fictional matter. It lists a series of guidelines that comic book FICTION needed to adhere to in order to gain access to the distribution method of the period.

The news is supposed to be anything BUT fiction.

A poster was advocating, perhaps in jest, that a private authority be created that would censor and regulate information. If you dont see the conection thats on you.

blast_front

06-25-2005, 08:53 AM

The real solution would be to teach good critical reading/thinking skills as part of the curriculum in schools.

Dennis

06-25-2005, 11:20 AM

if an area is a crime ridden hellhole, do you support the media calling it a "vibrant multiethnic neighborhood?"

The Mirrorball Man

06-25-2005, 11:23 AM

if an area is a crime ridden hellhole, do you support the media calling it a "vibrant multiethnic neighborhood?"
It can be both, right?

Dennis

06-25-2005, 11:25 AM

yeah, i guess. it's called spin, but you're right. are there crime ridden vibrant multiethnic neighborhoods in switzerland?

The Mirrorball Man

06-25-2005, 11:29 AM

yeah, i guess. it's called spin, but you're right. are there crime ridden vibrant multiethnic neighborhoods in switzerland?
Yes, Switzerland is a very multiethnic country. It's er... sometimes vibrant. And crime? Well, we have some of that too. Sometimes they all mix in the same neighborhood.
To be perfectly honest though, crime-ridden vibrant multiethnic neighborhoods are not Switzerland's forte.

Inkthinker

06-25-2005, 01:25 PM

How does that follow? Can you give me an example of a large group of peope who knew the whole truth and made a decision that benifitted society as a whole rather then just themselves as individuals?

If that large group of people IS society as a whole, then I'm following the logical concept that if society as a whole organism is relied upon to make a decision, they make decisions that they feel benefit them. But they need to be properly informed in order to make that decision.

Now, as to when society was informed enough to make those decisions, I'm not sure what exmaple I can put forth off the top of my head... perhaps the First Amendment would be a good start, thought that was a decision made by a small group for the benefit of society as a whole and not just themselves as individuals. I'm honestly not sure when American society as a whole was ever both A)truly well-informed and B)allowed to actually make a decision as a whole nation based on that information... after all, the only thing we're really allowed to decide on as a nation is who we place into the positions of making the rest of the big decisions, and I'd suggest after the last couple national elections that truth is anything BUT easy to discern in those decisions.

Did we every find out what Bush really was doing instead of fighting in Vietnam? Guess he was just lucky that back then we didn't send the Nat'l Guard to fight in foriegn wars.

But we're talking about logic and self-preservation here... if everyone is told that eating apples is bad for you, will everyone still eat apples? And if everyone is told that eating Chemical XJ14 causes you to look pretty and lose weight, will everyone eat Chemical XJ14 even if it turns out that what it really does is simply make you more inclined to eat Chemical XJ14?

Magneto_X

07-02-2005, 11:21 AM

Inkthinker

07-06-2005, 12:08 PM

"TomKat"

"TomKat"

Good god, I need to go bang my head against a wall for a week or so. >_<

There's something fundamentally wrong with "the news" when they place equivalent importance on celebrity gossip and stalking as they genocidal slaughter and the deaths of American soldiers.

Actually, given that I've seen NO coverage for the events in Darfur, they actually give MORE coverage to celebrity bullshit then they do to genocide. And that makes me really just... downright angry.

I guess genocide is okay when it's just happening to the darkies on the other side of the world.

:mad:

WatsonGlenn

07-06-2005, 03:23 PM

I guess genocide is okay when it's just happening to the darkies on the other side of the world.

Man you guys just don't get it!

MushMouth

07-06-2005, 06:30 PM

There's something fundamentally wrong with "the news" when they place equivalent importance on celebrity gossip and stalking as they genocidal slaughter and the deaths of American soldiers.

Actually, given that I've seen NO coverage for the events in Darfur, they actually give MORE coverage to celebrity bullshit then they do to genocide. And that makes me really just... downright angry.

But, there was a shark attack! Nevermind 30,000 people getting arrested and 200,000 being made homeless in a 3 week span in Zimbabwe. SHARK ATTACK!

WatsonGlenn

07-06-2005, 08:13 PM

But, there was a shark attack! Nevermind 30,000 people getting arrested and 200,000 being made homeless in a 3 week span in Zimbabwe. SHARK ATTACK!

Well, if I am swimming in the Gulf the shark become a whole lot more important.

But in any case the reality is we can and do have more than enough news about both sharks and Africa.

MushMouth

07-07-2005, 01:18 PM

Well, if I am swimming in the Gulf the shark become a whole lot more important.

But in any case the reality is we can and do have more than enough news about both sharks and Africa.

What is your definition of "more than enough?" In the last several months I can't recall ever seeing or hearing any mention of Darfur or Zimbabwe on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC. The only time I've seen anything about either was when PBS's NewsHour had on the NYT's Nicholas Kristof to talk about it.

On the other hand, during that same span of several months, I could turn to any of those 3 networks at any given time and expect with a fair degree of certainty to see them talking about either the girl missing in Aruba, Runaway bride, or a shark attack.

WatsonGlenn

07-07-2005, 02:15 PM

What is your definition of "more than enough?"

200 channels and the Internet plus thousands of papers and magazines

In the last several months I can't recall ever seeing or hearing any mention of Darfur or Zimbabwe on CNN, Fox, or MSNBC.

I sure have, and if you put Darfur in a Google search you will get thousands of hits.

Inkthinker

07-07-2005, 11:13 PM

200 channels and the Internet plus thousands of papers and magazines

Just for S&G, when I go to Borders tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to try and remember to look at the cover of every magazine and see if even one of them mentions the current African Genocide.

I do have those 200+ channels, and I even watch some of 'em. Can't recall the last time anyone mentioned Africa except in the context of celebrities like Pitt raising awareness in general (and that takes second place to the in-depth examination of whether or not he's boinking someone) or someone pointing out that there's no coverage of it.

I sure have, and if you put Darfur in a Google search you will get thousands of hits.

Sure, if you already are interested enough to even bother. It's not been front-page Google news at any recent point that I can recall, and I check Google News at least two-three times daily. SO many people just don't know, and so many people who do know don't seem to care. I can only surmise that they're either heartless, or they haven't had the facts presented to them sufficiently to impress what is actually happening, and just how ludicrous we look to the world when we hoot and holler about fighting tyranny and oppression and pay lip service to a horrible example of both happening right in front of us.

If CNN or FOX or MSNBC spent half the time they do talking about shark attacks and UFOs and celebrity gossip on Darfur, everyone would know exactly what it's about, rather than just vaguely knowing there's something going on where some people are killing some other people for something, but isn't that always going on over there?

The point is that these major "news" channels waste time on crap like "TomKat". If you think that following celebrity scandal is more important than following world news events and politics, then you should be watching E!, not CNN.

WatsonGlenn

07-08-2005, 05:57 AM

Just for S&G, when I go to Borders tomorrow or the next day, I'm going to try and remember to look at the cover of every magazine and see if even one of them mentions the current African Genocide.

The covers???

Well if you are just going to look at the covers then that explains a lot about you. Try opening the books for a change. Thanks for the insight. I never saw a serious argument like that. I wonder if a lot of people are like you. "Its not on the cover of Time so no one knows about it." Please, you can't be serious.

The covers, thats a good one.

By the way, whats S&G? Do I even want to know?

badMike

07-08-2005, 08:40 AM

The covers??? Well if you are just going to look at the covers then that explains a lot about you.He actually made a very serious point. If there were a genocide going on somewhere in the world, one could rationally assume that it would not only be a "Page 1" story, but that it would be screamed from the best available vantage point, e.g. a magazine cover, not buried in the back pages.

To tell you the truth, I get Newsweek every week and I can't remember them running a story on Darfur ever the past couple weeks. I'm not always able to read every page of every issue every week, so maybe it has been buried in the back pages. So, that's why it should be on the cover. If they can put dinosaurs on the cover like they did recently--and they've been dead a long time--they should take the time out at least one week to put a picture of a genocide happening right now.

As I also said the other day, a friend told me that nobody in her office knew who Karl Rove is. Newsweek has a one-page story on Karl this week buried on page 54. So, yes, if people read the magazine they would know who Karl is. But maybe if they stuck his face on the cover once or twice, they would at least know the damn guy's name even if they didn't buy the magazine.

WatsonGlenn

07-08-2005, 10:01 AM

He actually made a very serious point. If there were a genocide going on somewhere in the world, one could rationally assume that it would not only be a "Page 1" story, but that it would be screamed from the best available vantage point, e.g. a magazine cover, not buried in the back pages.

What I woud rationally assume is that if one wants to know about and understand genocide in Africa one is going to have to look a little deeper than the covers. This is not that hard. If one cannot be bothered to do so then one should not complain.

Its not that hard to learn about the problems in Africa. To say differantly is just....(I can't think of anything to say that would not be construed as insulting)

badMike

07-08-2005, 10:14 AM

What I woud rationally assume is that if one wants to know about and understand genocide in Africa one is going to have to look a little deeper than the covers. This is not that hard. If one cannot be bothered to do so then one should not complain.As part of my answer, I said I hadn't seen a Newsweek story INSIDE the magazine in months about genocide in Africa, either. So, looking "deeper" than the cover isn't going to get him any results, either.

Plus, asking for a little bit more global news other than when things just affect selfish American immediate interests isn't asking a lot and is a serious criticism of media in this country. This subject came up by a guy who already KNEW about Darfur, so he's obviously digging on his own to find these stories. What he's complaining about--which he has every right to do--is that this information is not easily or readily available to most Americans, which it should be.

WatsonGlenn

07-08-2005, 12:00 PM

As part of my answer, I said I hadn't seen a Newsweek story INSIDE the magazine in months about genocide in Africa, either. So, looking "deeper" than the cover isn't going to get him any results, either.

Yes, its too bad that 'Newsweek' is the only source of information in the USA.

What he's complaining about--which he has every right to do--is that this information is not easily or readily available to most Americans, which it should be.

I understand what he is complaining about and I have proven that this is not true.

Inkthinker

07-08-2005, 12:23 PM

I understand what he is complaining about and I have proven that this is not true.

No, you don't understand... it's not the availability of the information, it's the inclination of the masses to seek out information in the first place. We're very used to having news and so forth "fed" to us by TV and radio and newspapers that many people do not think they need to go farther than what they recieve passively. And what I'm saying is that the news that most people recieve passively is CRAP.

If all you do (and this is all that many people do) is listen to the network news at 6 and 10 o'clock and read the paper in the morning over breakfast, then I do not believe that you are a well-informed individual. Espescially if the network in question is FOX News and the newspaper is owned by one of the same media conglomerates that owns your television stations (thanks to deregulation)

Yes, the information is out there. But tell me, how do you know when and what to look for if no-one tells you that there's something to look for in the first place (or emphasizes how important it is that you DO go out and look for it)?

When the issue is as powerful as genocide, the systematic destruction of an an entire class of human beings, one would think that, if we are the kind of people we SAY that we are, then this would be a cover story on at least one news magazine that proports to inform people about world events.

I know about it because I listen to NPR and pick things up and go do Google News searches and troll Drudge and Disinfo from time to time.

But none of my friends do... they're all nice guys, but they watch the evening news (if that) and maybe read the paper. If they know anything, it's that some people over in Africa are getting killed... but they think that's been going on forever (because it's happened multiple times, dammit). Some of them saw Black Hawk Down, and they might remember that part of it, but not really, and anyway that was a movie.

And that's just one issue that the mainstream news ignores. And one of the ways they can ignore it is because they are in no way encouraged nor is it in their best interest to present information which is deeply investigative concerning people in positions of great power, or into issues which are dangerous, confusing, and embarrassing to the previously mentioned people in positions of great power.

WatsonGlenn

07-08-2005, 01:24 PM

No, you don't understand... it's not the availability of the information, it's the inclination of the masses to seek out information in the first place.

Well then you have altered your premise because first you were complaining about the media not telling people about Africa and now you seem to be still complaining about the media but you have added the assertion that your friends do not taking advantage of the media they have.

I can't argue with that since I don't know your friends but in light of the disdain you proclaimed for many of the people you live amongst I take it with a grain of salt.

Basically I think you can lead a horse to water but you can't make him drink. If you friends don't listen to NPR what are you gonna do? I listen every day but you think I'm a jerk too. Your post seems elitist and condescending to me. It too bad the rest of us don't measure up to your high standards.

badMike

07-08-2005, 02:51 PM

Yes, its too bad that 'Newsweek' is the only source of information in the USA.I didn't say it was. I was just offering an example.

Steven Grant

07-08-2005, 11:43 PM

What I woud rationally assume is that if one wants to know about and understand genocide in Africa one is going to have to look a little deeper than the covers. This is not that hard. If one cannot be bothered to do so then one should not complain.

Its not that hard to learn about the problems in Africa. To say differantly is just....(I can't think of anything to say that would not be construed as insulting)

No, it isn't all that hard to learn about the problems in Africa. But in order to go learn about them, you have to be aware they exist, and are serious enough to merit further investigation. In theory (largely because newspapers and other news media like to brag about this themselves), the news delivers to us at least awareness of critical issues. That massive starvation and genocide in Africa doesn't have a prominent place on the news connotes the message that, well, it's really just not very important, is it?

Your argument is roughly on the level of "ignorance of the law is no excuse." Well, I'm sorry, if I drive past a tree in a strange town and the locals all decided that tree was the town stop sign but they never bothered to mention it anywhere, well, I'm sorry, but there's no reasonable way I can be expected to know that. While I agree at this point most people should at least be marginally aware that there's trouble in Africa (though there's often a sort of "Forget it, Jake, it's Chinatown" component to reporting on events in foreign countries as well) and for many people Africa is a place that's just so far away they don't feel there's much they can do about the situation anyway (and not without some reason), most people don't even know what's going on in their own city councils. I've lived in Madison, New York, Los Angeles, Seattle and Las Vegas and I've never seen a local newspaper do a decent job of covering even city politics, which are often immediately germane and important to the residents of those cities and something they could have a direct impact on. Let's not even get started on Washington politics.

I'd like to see at least major state newspapers cover all proposed legislation on local, state and national level, with concise summaries of the purpose of the bill and the contents of the crap that gets cobbled onto them, and run it in a timely enough fashion that citizens can respond to the bills well prior to the votes. I don't expect that will happen, though.

On the other hand, pretty much everyone in Western Civilization knows how Tom proposed to Katie on the Eiffel Tower, whether they want to or not.

So I think, yeah, an argument can be made that the press, both print and TV, is doing a pretty slipshod job all around. I doubt there's anyone of any political persuasion who doesn't think they, they only disagree about what should be covered.

Newspapers also aren't really for in depth discussion of anything, under most circumstances. The theoretical job of a newspaper is to make its reading public aware of events and issues, in order of importance. Past that point, yes, you're right, it's up to individuals to further educate themselves, but they need to at least have a credible starting point.

WatsonGlenn

07-09-2005, 06:36 AM

That massive starvation and genocide in Africa doesn't have a prominent place on the news connotes the message that, well, it's really just not very important, is it?
Size matters huh. My wife lied to me.

Africa is a place that's just so far away they don't feel there's much they can do about the situation anyway
And as you said thats pretty much true. IMO Africans are going to have to help themselves and with the wide array of problems they have I don't know what they are going to do. Too much outside aid causes inflation and takes away their incentive to create. Too little and they die faster. To me the question of debt releif is moot to the West. They are not going to pay most of it anyway. Its ugly to say but I think a Malthusian solution is all that will work.

On the other hand, pretty much everyone in Western Civilization knows how Tom proposed to Katie on the Eiffel Tower, whether they want to or not.
I knew he proposed but I did not know it was on the Tower.

So I think, yeah, an argument can be made that the press, both print and TV, is doing a pretty slipshod job all around.
And I think the problem with news today is not a lack of information but too much of it. The Internet alone provides an ocean of information, far too much for anyone to navigate. Yes much of it is crap but there is much good stuff too. So much that there are not enough hours in the day to keep up.

bartl

07-09-2005, 06:53 AM

No, it isn't all that hard to learn about the problems in Africa. But in order to go learn about them, you have to be aware they exist, and are serious enough to merit further investigation. In theory (largely because newspapers and other news media like to brag about this themselves), the news delivers to us at least awareness of critical issues. That massive starvation and genocide in Africa doesn't have a prominent place on the news connotes the message that, well, it's really just not very important, is it?
Also, the major blame that both capitalist and communist states had on the current situation in Africa makes both sides kind of embarassed to go too much into it, for fear that their own part in creating the problems in the first place will be made too public, even to the point of officials confessing to wrongs they did not commit to hide the ones they did.