Msm?

Discussion in 'General Discussion' started by ErikViking, Aug 3, 2006.

  1. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +104
    When MSM is used on this forum, what does it mean? I know what the abreviation stands for, but I don't know what you mean by it.
     
  2. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Most paper editions, CNN, CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS (which are mostly newspaper writers), MSNBC, Most of the Weekly magazines.

    That's what I mean, anyways.
     
  3. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +104
    Okay... no wonder I didn't know then. I thoght it was a more general term, not a list of companies. But since you call them mainstream, are those the largest companies? Is there an equivalent in size not being mainstream?

    I use to check out CNN.com daily to get some American input.
     
  4. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Mostly largest or longest established. Alternative media would be FOX, Some of the more local news dailies, some weeklies, blogs (got to be careful there), TCS, gotta look around.
     
  5. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +104
    Thank you for a quick response!
    I use to watch FOX too. Although to be honest, I haven't noticed a difference between CNN and FOX. Haven't been looking of course.
     
  6. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    I'd say the biggest difference is how they cover the same events. I turn to CNN during commercials, I've yet NOT to find them in Lebanon. FOX has Lebanon covered too, but there is also coverage from Israel as often.

    FOX puts on those that say they have been victimized, then follow up with an Israeli response. CNN puts on the victims, then someone from Human Rights Watch. Same sort of coverage happened during Katrina.

    That's my take, anyways. Perhaps more importantly, several studies back that up.
     
  7. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +104
    I know exacly what you mean by that. A "right" newspaper here will report more from Isrealian perspective and the otherway around. A few years ago the discussion ran about bias in media and now a days all media is more keen to pick up reports from "the other side" so to say. But no where near perfect and we don't call it "mainstream" and "alternative" rather someting like your "liberal" and "conservative".

    I'll start to pay some more attention when reading from American sources now, that will be fun!
     
  8. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    Oh I agree that we all carry our 'visions' around, including reporters. The difference is, they are supposed to be constantly aware of that and attempt to compensate for it. If I'm 'conservative' it's natural to want to read what I agree with, same for someone 'liberal.' Truth is, if I only take in from my chorus, I know I'll never see the complete the background I need to try and understand.

    The media should be more aware and diligent than myself.
     
  9. ErikViking
    Offline

    ErikViking VIP Member

    Joined:
    Apr 26, 2006
    Messages:
    896
    Thanks Received:
    76
    Trophy Points:
    63
    Location:
    Stockholm - Sweden
    Ratings:
    +104

    This way internet is good. You can read subject-wise and get input from all kind of sources. Like here. Sorting is tough though. 50% of the information here for instance means nothing to me. Some international questions discussed here has a domestic background which isn't obvious at a first glance. The good thing here, compared to blogs or news sites is that it is dynamic.

    Good point actually. I wonder why the situation is like this. Is it economical? Like "we aim for the liberal segment of readers" or are newspapers bound to a certain perspective which let them only to hire certain reporters?
     
  10. Annie
    Offline

    Annie Diamond Member

    Joined:
    Nov 22, 2003
    Messages:
    50,847
    Thanks Received:
    4,644
    Trophy Points:
    1,790
    Ratings:
    +4,770
    No 'bound' about it. It's their choice. Different papers have different levels they carry their agenda to. Chicago Tribune used to be right of neandrathals. Not anymore. It's more balanced than the NY Times, but that's like saying John Kerry is more balanced than Howard Dean. Or Rush Limbaugh is more balanced than Pat Buchanan.

    The WSJ is conservative in editorials, but not so much in news. WaPo is better than most, closer to balanced. Problem with all though is editorializing the news.
     

Share This Page