Reply to thread

Message

<blockquote data-quote="John Roberts" data-source="post: 40522" data-attributes="member: 126">Re: More on the Gibson storyI prefer to think that a lot of the framing of news reportage is innocent (like playing that old kindergarten game of telephone) and simply trying to appeal to their audience or what they think the audience wants to hear (its a business). Another factor is how political operatives of all sides effectively steer the images that TV news presents with concerted efforts to provide photo opportunities (that they can control the unspoken message within), and talking points, so the 30 second audio bite will probably one from the short list coming from multiple directions in perfect harmony. This management of talking points to control sound bites is so bad, that in one segment last night, the nominal representative of one side&#039;s viewpoint seemed to answer every question in non-sequitors but each answer a programmed talking point, albeit unrelated to the questions. <img src="https://cdn.jsdelivr.net/joypixels/assets/8.0/png/unicode/64/1f642.png" class="smilie smilie--emoji" loading="lazy" width="64" height="64" alt=":-)" title="Smile&nbsp; &nbsp; :-)"&nbsp; data-smilie="1"data-shortname=":-)" /> I for one get angry that the political discussion gets dominated by operatives from one side or the other to focus on points each side thinks they have an advantage in pushing, while important issues to all of us go largely ignored, since they don&#039;t perceive any political hay to be made from discussion. It&#039;s all a game, and the easiest way to lose is to not realize it&#039;s a game, and what the rules are. So lets all play nice.JR PS: To say something favorable about the medium (TV), already this weekend I have learned useful factoids from two different CSPAN segments that I caught in passing. There be some pearls there, between all the politicians bloviating to empty chambers.</blockquote>

[QUOTE="John Roberts, post: 40522, member: 126"] Re: More on the Gibson story I prefer to think that a lot of the framing of news reportage is innocent (like playing that old kindergarten game of telephone) and simply trying to appeal to their audience or what they think the audience wants to hear (its a business). Another factor is how political operatives of all sides effectively steer the images that TV news presents with concerted efforts to provide photo opportunities (that they can control the unspoken message within), and talking points, so the 30 second audio bite will probably one from the short list coming from multiple directions in perfect harmony. This management of talking points to control sound bites is so bad, that in one segment last night, the nominal representative of one side's viewpoint seemed to answer every question in non-sequitors but each answer a programmed talking point, albeit unrelated to the questions. :-) I for one get angry that the political discussion gets dominated by operatives from one side or the other to focus on points each side thinks they have an advantage in pushing, while important issues to all of us go largely ignored, since they don't perceive any political hay to be made from discussion. It's all a game, and the easiest way to lose is to not realize it's a game, and what the rules are. So lets all play nice. JR PS: To say something favorable about the medium (TV), already this weekend I have learned useful factoids from two different CSPAN segments that I caught in passing. There be some pearls there, between all the politicians bloviating to empty chambers. [/QUOTE]

Verification