大象传媒

Dreyfuss has some interesting things to say, and the fact that instantaneous knowledge often leads to hasty action is perhaps the most important message to take away from his speech.

His other main rhetorical point seemed to be that we need to encourage more democratic, widespread reading as well as writing (with reference to blogging). How do we get people to read what good citizen journalists are writing? Well, the answer seems to be to print them in a traditional, old fashioned, paper based form. The bookshelves are populated by 'Best Blog' anthologies, and most newspapers, notably the regular feature on page three of the Guardian, contain a round up of blogopinions. This raises another question in light of the We Media poll results - will we always trust the traditional media more than this new, democratic, often hastily constructed platform on offer to us now?

What I find lacking in these kind of approaches to media problems is the lack of financial context. It all remains rhetorical until the mainstream media accepts a socially responsible role. Unfortunately, shareholders are put before citizens.

I think the author should provide something other than anecdotal evidence to support his point. I don't see any of the effects he is talking about. 24-hour news has existed for a while, and the fact that there are now a variety of sources is extremely helpful in forming a balanced opinion.

The internet gives balance, and alternative points of view. The internet breaks down the kind of closed-mindedness that closed communities can suffer from.

This is the exact opposite of what the author is claiming.

Though I agree that technology allows us to access huge amounts of information very quickly, I don't believe that it is technology that takes away our time to think. News may be beamed to our tellys 24 hours a day, but there is an off button.

If we are to think, it is up to us to resist the temptation to try and take all the available information in. It is easy to believe that watching the news all the time is the same as considering it.

Responding to Lincoln's post, I feel this addresses a larger issue whereby almost all members of society, citizens, businesses, and goernments alike, are ultimately self-interested and this self-interest usually takes a financial connotation. At what point do we toss aside the strict financial constraints and start concerning ourselves with more genuine regard for the overall well-being of humanity? The first and hardest step is sacrifice, and superficialty, in the news, in other forms of media, and in life in general, just sweep society farther away from being ready to take that step.

A wave of truth in a sea of lies. Well said Mr Dreyfuss. The sad fact is that the media thinks its viewers should be given information in a fashion that most 8 year olds would find insulting. Why?

Firstly they insult the intelligence of viewers and listeners by feeding the line thatm most of them can't understand some of the complex problems that exist in our world today. So what we get as viewers and listeners is a simplistic, watered down version of events that leaves out many important facts. Anyone watching 大象传媒 or Sky can see this by their use of tediously obvious strap lines on the screen to "help explain" things. Whilst watching Sky's coverage of the Asian Tsunami they were talking about what food the people there needed and somehow felt the need to display a (badly drawn) graphic of a carrott and an apple. Do they really think people are so stupid? Obviously so.

Secondly there is an obvious issue of time, or moreover the lack of it. These restraints mean depth cannot be gone into on many issues and instead viewers are given a shortened version of what is happening. Combine this with the need to "keep it simple" for the uneducated masses and you end up with news bulletin's which are frankly laughable to anyone who has the time or inclination to read more about their world. The best piece of advice I can give to people is by all means watch thenews, but apply some critical analysis to it. Dont let it wash over you in a fashion that means you don't question it. Be alert and think for yourself, in doing so you might see what's on your screen in a different way than before.

Lastly its important that these new technologies aren't put on a mantle and worshipped like idols. They are tools like anything else. And like all tools they can be used in a positive or negative fashion. If the mass media embraces these tools yet fails to change the fundamental failures in the way it represents truth and reality in the world today then they will prove to only compound the problems that already exist. In my opinion the only way for this to change is for the ranks of citizen journalists and bloggers to keep pushing the mainstream media beyond their comfort zones.

This is our world, we want it shown as it is and not as a few self important editors and journalists want us to see it.

The problem of understanding news today is compounded by the overuse of in-the-field reporters guessing or stating about how someone/someplace must be/is "feeling" as opposed to focusing on a purely objective fact based description of an event.

I don't care how someone "feels" about an event (be it the reporter or the person(s) involved), but do care about been given the full facts in an easily digestable manner.

Watching the UK news is akin to watching a children's storytelling programme. Every report is filled with superfluous adjectives. Of course every murder is shocking and/or gruesome so why does the reporter always needs to tells us this?

The above commenter mentions financial considerations - well, the financial consideration is that I recently stopped watching the UK's touchy-feely TV news because I do not get the facts I need.

I much prefer the internet for pure unfiltered independent facts and then find further in depth discussion online if needed.

Perhaps there is some truth to this, however I think that it is not the whole story. First of all, a "round" education is able to combat the possible negative effects of an "overload of information". What and HOW we learn is all important; in schools we must learn to read critically and be encouraged to think "out of the box". Critical reading teaches the skill of analysis and improves general reasoning abilities as well. "Thinking out of the box" will enable us, readers of mass media, to take what we read and apply it to our own purposes; in essence we will not be "monkey see, monkey do", but will take what we discover about a certain phenomenon and transfer it to our realm of interest. Secondly, the multiple sources of information are a richness of this day and age. Although, the never ending amount of information available may be daunting , most people do not attempt to uncover it all, rather they have a few sources, such as the web pages of the main stream traditional (print) newspapers, to satisfy their daily craving for news and information. Additional information is consulted when one is researching or looking in depth at a matter. Thirdly, in response to "Where is the time to apply reason and logic, and question what we watch and read?" I maintain this is about prioritising ones obligations and also something that is up to readers themselves to recognise. To apply reason and logic, one usually would need an aim, i.e. something to apply them to. I think when a person has interests of their own, whether it be following formula one competitions or 18th century English literature, then technology such as the internet can truly fascilitate their interests into potential hobbies; the internet is a place to meet and be met, engage in discourse, explore an interest to greater depths and so on.

I have read Mr. Dreyfuss's speech and I was rather confused. He makes a statement, that the fast flowing information of the Internet is creating a society where we have little time to "think" about the issues hence, there is little time for logic and reason.

Now I wish he would cite concrete examples of this issue because my experience differs immensely. Because of the Internet, I can read issues happening in France for example, from a number of different sources and perspectives (blogs, press, wikis, etc). Each source is like a piece of a jigsaw puzzle... each one may be a small piece of the picture but together they give the reader an immense understanding of all sides.

What confuses me more about Mr. Dreyfuss speech is he doesn't seem to have a solution to this "alledged" problem. Should we slow the news down or restrict internet traffic to news and blog sites? THAT would be a REAL problem.

The "Media" in the U.S. has become nothing more than a gigantic corporate mouthpiece since the telecomm act of 1995. The networks avoid stepping on their corporate owners to the point that the so called "news" has lost all objectivity... But then why would the media expose their own gravy train to profits...

In response to Calum Grant's post:

It is true that the Internet provides a plethora of information choices, and 24-hour news channels do the same.

Your statement, however, is predicated on the idea that the Internet user/TV watcher will change the channel and/or visit different sites to get a full range of opinions.

In the US, we had a law until about 20 years ago (around the time of the advent of cable news) that emphasized that editorials needed to be labeled as such, and that opposing viewpoints had to be presented in the same viewing. This law is no longer on the books, and the result is that the media's response to balance and fairness is at best random (most of the networks) and at worst completely ignored (Fox News, which is essentially a propaganda channel for conservatives).

I agree with Dreyfuss that some media outlets are shaping news, and that news is mutating into infotainment. We need responsibility among broadcasters to present unvarnished facts and a wide range of responses from all sides of an issue - as well as responsibility of the viewers and Internet users to read and understand (if not agree with) what's being discussed.

Dreyfuss presents a well - intentioned argument, one that has been running since the sixties at least, as far as I am aware. The news, in all manifestations (and I include this message in this description), is presented in abstract, easily digestible chunks; these unrelated reports have little or no relation to the other reports presented in a programme: ''And now, this!'' It is presented as fact. It has a reasonable, smiling face. It plays to the audience's fears of what is happening to 'our' side. It is designed to make the audience think in a convergent way, but also to subtly draw conclusions for them. It makes no demands on the audience, except for them to react (for example, you cannot respond interactively to this message, merely react): ''Why not e-mail us with your thoughts?'' It does not invite discussion or digression (infotainment?). It does require the audience to be passive responders, not active participants. It subverts democratic discussion by pretending to be the (unelected, unasked) voice of freedom. The audience watches passively as the right to free debate is slowly eroded by one - way electronic communication. Unelected, unanswerable, unasked, it invades your space at the behest of the wealthy and the influential. Blogs? They're the equivalent of backdoor gossip - participated in by a few, and those who (largely) agree with each other - an illusory by-product of the information super-highway. Frustrating and frightening, isn't it?

What doesn't seem to be mentioned is why having information when you want it reduces the amount of time for thinking about it. Surely having it at you convenience means you do it when you have more time and can think more about it.

The real impact is when people head away from the traditional bulletins and papers the thinking isn't done for them anymore people have to interpret the news themselves, rather than let the media companies do the thinking for them.

If you have a problem with "morals" basic or even religious far right, the time involved to "think" only allows an immoral stature of one's personal morals to bend and sway. It's as simple as right or wrong. What's to think about?

Noam Chomsky said once (something to the effect of) that everything is reported in the mainstream media its just the weight that the real issues are given. Hence there is a need for people to go back and look at things that have been reported in the past as often inportant parts of the story are filled in later - governments use this tactic to release important information later after the real emotion has died down about the initial story. Think of how mad people would be if the vidoe of the head of fema worring the superdome might collapse had come out sooner after the initial hurricane. or if the finding of the 911 commision and all the blunder had come out closer to the 911 attacks. I think more needs to be done to link back these facts as they come out to how people were feeliing at the time. The fact that people forget is used by government to get away with a lot of things thay shouldn't.

There is a need in the mainsteam media not to rock the boat and keep the people calm.

Too bad I missed Richard's speech, because from what I'm reading here he's the first one today touching the topic of media consumption and the people and their ability to actually absorb it.

One simple solution is to make your own list of what YOU believe are the top news stories of great importance. I have made such a list on my kitchen wall. Every weekend I write on it that which to me were the big reports of past week. At the end of the year I review it and cast my vote accordingly. Government does not want us to seperate big from small. Breaking news wants us to move on and on.