Volconvo is a debate forum for the discussion of political, religious, and news-based topics.

Geoff332 · Sep 24, 2003, 08:54 pm

One of the more interesting ideas in 1984 was the emergence of newsspeak. Newsspeak was the generation of slogans which effectively substituted rhetoric for thought or logic.

In today's media, news stories are generally contrained to a maximum of 30 second (radio) or 3 minute (television) segments. My belief is that this is very similar to Orwell's newsspeak. The primary difference is that it is not being done intentionally by various western governments, but voluntarily by the media itself. Nevertheless, the effect is the same: critical analysis of issues is being replaced by sloganised rhetoric (ironically, that phrase is a perfect example of what I mean).

Is this really happening?
What are the causes?
Is it a problem?
What are the solutions?

Sodfather · Sep 24, 2003, 09:41 pm

Wow, I agree, that could actually be happening - although I don't think the media would do it intentially; what do they have to gain from it?

Now a government doing it would be a more plausible idea - I think "War on Terror" might even fit the bill, because, instead of it sounding like fighting and taking the lives of other feeling human beings, they've substituted the word terror which in turn has a connotation of some abstarct evil that should be stopped - when in reality we are fighting people. They should be terming it "War on Iraqis".

Is that anywhere near what you were going for, Geoff?

Geoff332 · Sep 24, 2003, 10:04 pm

Quote:

what do they have to gain from it?

Profit.

Take, as an example, Fox News. Do they provide reasoned analysis of events or politicised and over-simplified rhetoric? Do they make a lot of money? Rupert Murdoch has done the same thing in other countries (the UK and Australia). In the UK, one needs look no further than The Sun for the public love of rhetoric over substance. It's the highest selling newspaper and is a perfect example of what I am talking about. by keeping things simple, people are not challenged. By not challenging people, you are less likely to alienate them. If you don't alienate them, they will buy your paper/watch your channel.

The "War on Terror" is sort of an example. The term itself was coined by the whitehouse (which is a problem in itself, but not the problem I was talking about). But the real problem is the lack of critical analysis of what this war actaully means and an unquestioning acceptance of the 'official line'. Why has this term been used uncritically, rather than picked apart to explain what it really means?

(nb I picked Fox because it seems to be the most obvious example; not because of its particular ideological bias.)

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 27, 2003, 10:34 am

This is one of the things that bothers me. I decided a few years ago to get my news from better sources than the media newscasts after an incident that annoyied me greatly. I developed an interest in a story that was being reported but the media failed to give enough facts for me to even determine what had even happened. All that I learned was that it involved a dog and the reporter did not like what happened. IMO: this does not constitute news. But I admit it probably would not have drawn my interest had they simply told me what actually happened, rather than ignoring all the facts and presenting their bare opinion.

GreatWyrm of Babylon · Sep 27, 2003, 10:36 am

Geoff
Do not lie to us, you picked Fox because you do not agree least with them. At least be honest about it...

RebelWithanAK · Sep 27, 2003, 09:11 pm

Are you saying that CNN, ABC, or CBS don't have profit motives, time constraints, corporate backers, and a hope for the same viewer audience Fox News currently holds?

Scribbler1 · Nov 23, 2003, 12:58 am

</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,)
Are you saying that CNN, ABC, or CBS don't have profit motives, time constraints, corporate backers, and a hope for the same viewer audience Fox News currently holds?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'>

Absolutely they do. Whoever has the highest ratings gets copied in the hope of taking some of them away for themselves. I think it all started with Ted Turner. News is cheap. You don't have to pay for a newsworthy event, just be there and tape it. Then hire the same guy with the same set to report on it. Turner thought he could do that 24/7 and make a bucketful of money. The problem is overkill. Even an hour is enough for most of the people (or 30 min. for the BBC) so to keep the attention of the sheep you have to expand, inflate and give enough to cover all that time, but most news is really pretty mundane so they either concentrate on the sensationmal or make it sensational themselves, and then find a slant on the coverage to keep the viewers attention. At this time in our recent history it's either show biz or anything conservative. But if that changes they will change with it and all the while the people will still be underinformed and the real news under reported.

Sep 27, 2003, 09:11 pm	#6 (permalink) (top)
RebelWithanAK Igneous Magma Location: New York City Posts: 739	Are you saying that CNN, ABC, or CBS don't have profit motives, time constraints, corporate backers, and a hope for the same viewer audience Fox News currently holds? . . . whenever any government becomes destructive to these ends, it is the right of the people to alter or to abolish it, and to institute a new government, laying its foundations on such principles and organizing its powers in such forms as to them shall seem most likely to effect their safety and happiness.

Nov 23, 2003, 12:58 am	#7 (permalink) (top)
Scribbler1 Skeptical Patriot Posts: 7,746	</span><blockquote><span class="smallfont">Quote:</span><hr size="1" />Originally Posted by (RebelWithanAK,) Are you saying that CNN, ABC, or CBS don't have profit motives, time constraints, corporate backers, and a hope for the same viewer audience Fox News currently holds?<hr size="1" /></blockquote><span class='postcolor'> Absolutely they do. Whoever has the highest ratings gets copied in the hope of taking some of them away for themselves. I think it all started with Ted Turner. News is cheap. You don't have to pay for a newsworthy event, just be there and tape it. Then hire the same guy with the same set to report on it. Turner thought he could do that 24/7 and make a bucketful of money. The problem is overkill. Even an hour is enough for most of the people (or 30 min. for the BBC) so to keep the attention of the sheep you have to expand, inflate and give enough to cover all that time, but most news is really pretty mundane so they either concentrate on the sensationmal or make it sensational themselves, and then find a slant on the coverage to keep the viewers attention. At this time in our recent history it's either show biz or anything conservative. But if that changes they will change with it and all the while the people will still be underinformed and the real news under reported. Not a day goes by that I don't see something that reinforces my belief that people are idiots.

Sep 24, 2003, 08:54 pm	#1 (permalink) (top)
Geoff332 Igneous Magma Location: New Zealand Posts: 309	One of the more interesting ideas in 1984 was the emergence of newsspeak. Newsspeak was the generation of slogans which effectively substituted rhetoric for thought or logic. In today's media, news stories are generally contrained to a maximum of 30 second (radio) or 3 minute (television) segments. My belief is that this is very similar to Orwell's newsspeak. The primary difference is that it is not being done intentionally by various western governments, but voluntarily by the media itself. Nevertheless, the effect is the same: critical analysis of issues is being replaced by sloganised rhetoric (ironically, that phrase is a perfect example of what I mean). Is this really happening? What are the causes? Is it a problem? What are the solutions?

Sep 24, 2003, 09:41 pm	#2 (permalink) (top)
Sodfather Igneous Magma Posts: 327	Wow, I agree, that could actually be happening - although I don't think the media would do it intentially; what do they have to gain from it? Now a government doing it would be a more plausible idea - I think "War on Terror" might even fit the bill, because, instead of it sounding like fighting and taking the lives of other feeling human beings, they've substituted the word terror which in turn has a connotation of some abstarct evil that should be stopped - when in reality we are fighting people. They should be terming it "War on Iraqis". Is that anywhere near what you were going for, Geoff?

Sep 27, 2003, 10:34 am	#4 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	This is one of the things that bothers me. I decided a few years ago to get my news from better sources than the media newscasts after an incident that annoyied me greatly. I developed an interest in a story that was being reported but the media failed to give enough facts for me to even determine what had even happened. All that I learned was that it involved a dog and the reporter did not like what happened. IMO: this does not constitute news. But I admit it probably would not have drawn my interest had they simply told me what actually happened, rather than ignoring all the facts and presenting their bare opinion.

Sep 27, 2003, 10:36 am	#5 (permalink) (top)
GreatWyrm of Babylon Avatar of Tiamut Location: Dallas, Texas (Irving) Posts: 848	Geoff Do not lie to us, you picked Fox because you do not agree least with them. At least be honest about it...