Are your views represented in the news media?

[Rambuchan]

I appreciate this could well be a generalised discussion, as we all consume different, largely localised news media. We also have differing views. However, this is an important discussion, well worth having in my opinion, as it can throw up insights about each others' experience of public debate. It's also a very important one if you value the smooth functioning of the democracy you live in and your democratic rights and obligations within it.

I think we can all agree that the media, especially the news media, is an essential cog in the workings of effective democracy. It should inform us in a balanced fashion, providing access to the full spectrum of political debate and information, so that we may be fully appraised of all options and issues come the time for us to vote.

Therein lies the reason why the following questions are being asked. Kindly answer them, discuss and vote in the poll. Do vote later if you are unsure now.

NOTE: When I say 'the news' or 'the news media' below, I mean the main, overall news that you consume, whether that is one source or a number of sources. It's your general impression of the public debate and the way it is conducted - on your behalf. It may help to briefly state where you live and what news you consume before answering the questions.


--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When watching the headline item on TV, hearing it on radio or looking at the front page of a paper/website, do you ever think?

- This is not the most important issue our country/world faces right now.
- This is an important issue but why are we looking at it from this angle?
- This is mirroring the government's line of debate. (Do replace govt with 'industry', 'gay lobby', 'oil lobby', whatever else you see fit)
- This is a one sided analysis of the issues at play.
- Why are we not discussing <insert the issue you're concerned about>?
- The use of graphics, music, editing is trying to lead my perception of the story.
- This source is 'following the rest of the herd', rather than following its sense of journalistic integrity.
- This is a ratings/sales based item and nothing but.

Examples will aid the discussion here. Please provide if you can.


When watching or hearing a debate on TV or radio, or after reading an article, do you ever think?

- A major party's contribution was left out of the debate/article altogether.
- The chairperson, presenter, journalist is biased.
- This is quite common, so, do you agree with their bias or not?
- Do you think they should be biased?
- This guest was unfairly represented, his/her voice was not presented in a balanced fashion when compared to other guests.

Examples will aid the discussion here too.


More generally:

- Can you think of any particular issues that were 'mishandled' or 'misrepresented' in recent history or even today?
- Do you feel you have free access to a balanced news media?
- Is the internet a good thing for democratic news consumption?
- Is the internet going to be so?

---------------------------------------------------------------------------

Sorry for all the questions. Please feel free to start new threads on any particular topics that get too unwieldy. Thanks in advance for getting really stuck into this one

 

[Abaddon]

Politically i think the UK is pretty fair as far as showing all partys to be equally rubbish.

What annoys me is that news is all sensationalism- **** is still hitting the fan big time in Afganistan, Africas totally buggered etc, but since this has happened already.. a new explosion or drought barely makes the news anymore, but if 2Jags has an afair, its a major news feed for weeks.

I just think the news could be better usedto make ther public aware of problems beyond our bourders we can help with.

 

[The Last Conformist]

As an introduction, I live in Sweden, any my main source of news is newspapers, paper or online editions.

--------------------------------------------------------------------------

When watching the headline item on TV, hearing it on radio or looking at the front page of a paper/website, do you ever think?

- This is not the most important issue our country/world faces right now.
All the time - the evening press is very fond of having celebrity gossip all over the frontpage. Today it's the murder of a friend of a ski star.

- This is an important issue but why are we looking at it from this angle?
Sometimes.

- This is mirroring the government's line of debate. (Do replace govt with 'industry', 'gay lobby', 'oil lobby', whatever else you see fit)
Nah, not really.

- This is a one sided analysis of the issues at play.
Often.

- Why are we not discussing <insert the issue you're concerned about>?
Sometimes.

- The use of graphics, music, editing is trying to lead my perception of the story.
Not really.

- This source is 'following the rest of the herd', rather than following its sense of journalistic integrity.
Not really.

- This is a ratings/sales based item and nothing but.
Very often.

When watching or hearing a debate on TV or radio, or after reading an article, do you ever think?

- A major party's contribution was left out of the debate/article altogether.
This would only really be relevant for survey pieces, wouldn't it? It's not a usual criticism of mine of news media, at any rate.

- The chairperson, presenter, journalist is biased.
- This is quite common, so, do you agree with their bias or not?
- Do you think they should be biased?
Everyone is biased, some the same way as me, some not. Some journos should do a better job of distinguishing their beliefs and values from commonly agreed reality, but I don't think it's a big problem.

- This guest was unfairly represented, his/her voice was not presented in a balanced fashion when compared to other guests.
I suppose it's happened, but it's not a usual problem.

More generally:

- Can you think of any particular issues that were 'mishandled' or 'misrepresented' in recent history or even today?
The example that comes to mind is the whole tsunami affair, where way too much energy was spent on arguing why the government didn't act with the speed and resources people expected, and way to little about whether we should be expecting the gov't to take care of us just as much in Thailand as home in Sweden.

- Do you feel you have free access to a balanced news media?
Yes and no. There's pretty good balance in attitudes and ideology, but I wish it wasn't so damn hard to get new from non-Western places that aren't Israel/Palestine or invaded by American soldiers.

- Is the internet a good thing for democratic news consumption?
It certainly makes the news world more democratic. Whether it makes it more accurate and reliable is, I'm afraid, still an open question.

- Is the internet going to be so?
Going to be what?

 

[Bozo Erectus]

I dont go to the news media in search of views, just information. Aside from a major crisis or event, Im unable to watch the American news media because theres no information, just happytalk and reassurance for the legions of mindless glassy eyed dullards.

 

[BasketCase]

I have your general collection of views about gun control, abortion, the environment, Iraq, blah blah blah blah.

What I value more than those opinions, however, is freedom of thought; that people should have the right to express their opinions without getting shot, insulted, ridiculed, called an idiot, etc.

Respect seems to be a rare gem in the news media. Debates on Hannity and Colmes, for example, are almost always shouting matches where each party is focused entirely on shutting up the other one. A favorite tactic of the combatants seems to be firing off a steady stream of duckspeak so the other party can't get a word in edgewise. Problem is, both sides do that at the same time.

So, the thing I value most basically gets no coverage at all.

 

[Rambuchan]

Here are my answers:

Background: I live in the UK. My news comes mainly from a) Listening to the "Today" programme on BBC Radio 4 every morning. b) Reading The Times, The Guardian, The Economist (getting jaded by these), Private Eye, Spectator (always great fun and insightful). c) Reading internet news which varies a lot, including random stories picked up from places like OT. d) Watching Channel 4 News, BBC News 24 and Sky News (in that order of preference). e) From friends also, who then recommend reading material more in line with my views.

-------------

When watching the headline item on TV, hearing it on radio or looking at the front page of a paper/website, do you ever think?

- This is not the most important issue our country/world faces right now.
All the time. I think this is down to the news networks' commercial obligations, their herd mentality and our alleged appetite for sensationalism.

- This is an important issue but why are we looking at it from this angle?
Yes. There are issues of monopolisation here (see News International, the UK subsidiary of News Corporation) and various forms of lobbying / 'bed fellowing' too I reckon (again, see News Corp).

- This is mirroring the government's line of debate. (Do replace govt with 'industry', 'gay lobby', 'oil lobby', whatever else you see fit)
Far too often. And all the mainstream media do this. Whether this is lobbying, the herd mentality, hijacked debates gone astray or something else, I see this all the time. Main examples would be the debate over Iran right now (govt line at the expense of all other angles on the debate). Another would be reactions to climate change (lobbyists and govt here are obstructing adequate info about alternatives being made available).

- This is a one sided analysis of the issues at play.
See above.

- Why are we not discussing <insert the issue you're concerned about>?
Yes, there is way too much time spent discussing 'security issues', 'the war on terror', ministers' private lives, celebrity nonsense. This distracts from the economy, an on-going raft of legislation which is being rushed through (usually related to security issues), humanitarian crises around the world, the erosion of the liberties we used to take for granted and a host of other issues which get sidelined.

- The use of graphics, music, editing is trying to lead my perception of the story.
Not in the UK.

- This source is 'following the rest of the herd', rather than following its sense of journalistic integrity.
The BBC does this from time to time. It's disappointing. Sky do it ALL the time.

There was however one stand out example of this in action and how potent the herd mentality can be. That was the breaking of the US presidential election results in 2000.

- This is a ratings/sales based item and nothing but.
Like I said above, yes.



When watching or hearing a debate on TV or radio, or after reading an article, do you ever think?

- A major party's contribution was left out of the debate/article altogether., - This guest was unfairly represented, his/her voice was not presented in a balanced fashion when compared to other guests.
Yes. The African perspective is rarely referenced when discussing issues of third world debt and development. The serious environmentalists and alternative energy bodies are left out of the climate change debate too much. Instead we often have flimsy individuals and organisms representing these views. Immigration issues are far too often misrepresented by hardliners who are pro-immigration, failing to give the moderates a voice. This leads to a stark polarisation which often isn't there. Other examples exist.

- The chairperson, presenter, journalist is biased.
We're pretty much OK on this in the UK.

- This is quite common, so, do you agree with their bias or not?, - Do you think they should be biased?
Bias from the journalist, chairperson, presenter is not acceptable. When this enters the fray it becomes chat, commentary, propaganda, not objective news reporting. Of course, that 3 letter 'F word' is the finest example of this wandering into murky journalistic waters.


More generally:

- Can you think of any particular issues that were 'mishandled' or 'misrepresented' in recent history or even today?
Yes. The Iran nuclear issue, the War in Iraq and Afghanistan, Bush's first election result, the David Kelly affair, and so on.

- Do you feel you have free access to a balanced news media?
I do but I'm as unaware of a lot of it just as many others are.

- Is the internet a good thing for democratic news consumption?
Hell yes, this is where monopolies can be challenged and the media reclaimed.

- Is the internet going to be so?
I don't know so much about how the internet develops but I've read a fair bit about how action needs to be taken now in order to ensure fair and even control of the internet (ie. its democratic uses being achieved fully). I'd like to hear more from others about what the future ownership of internet media may look like.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

When watching the headline item on TV, hearing it on radio or looking at the front page of a paper/website, do you ever think?

- This is not the most important issue our country/world faces right now. Definately. This is more often the case than not. 'Celeb' obbession being a source of constant disappointment for me

- This is an important issue but why are we looking at it from this angle?
Yes. I've mentioned in other threads that the media focus on a particular group reflects it's readship and/or political views. Attention on the criminal activities of immigrants / asylum seekers for instance. Or the sensationalism of certain crimes which, when taken in context, are very, very rare.

- This is mirroring the government's line of debate. (Do replace govt with 'industry', 'gay lobby', 'oil lobby', whatever else you see fit)
At party conference time read The Times review of Tony Blairs speech followed by The Mirror's review. The difference is staggering.

- This is a one sided analysis of the issues at play.
Again, more often than not. More in Tabloids than Spreadsheets. Tabloids, by their nature, have to hit you and hit you hard quickly. Spreadsheets can take the time to set context.

- Why are we not discussing <insert the issue you're concerned about>?
Yep.

- The use of graphics, music, editing is trying to lead my perception of the story.
Yes, but it takes discipline to pick this up. Before I went to uni and had my eyes opened I wouldn't have noticed. Or taken the time to read around the issue from other sources.

- This is a ratings/sales based item and nothing but.Is there ever a story make it into a paper which is not ratings/sales based?
Examples will aid the discussion here. Please provide if you can.

When watching or hearing a debate on TV or radio, or after reading an article, do you ever think?

- This guest was unfairly represented, his/her voice was not presented in a balanced fashion when compared to other guests.
I remember after 9/11 there were two Muslims girls on Question Time, I forget what nationality they were. They complained that the West was killing far more children in Iraq through sanctions than people who had died in 9/11. They was a formal apology issued by the BBC and their question was editted out for the repeat. I'm not saying I agree with what they say, and I think the timing was a bit off, but you shouldn't enter into a debate and then edit out the views of those you disagree with.

I try to watch programmes like Newsnight or Channel 4 news simply because they go into more depth than 'normal' news programmes. It's very hard to do a 3 minute segment which encompasses all the relevent context.

More generally:

- Can you think of any particular issues that were 'mishandled' or 'misrepresented' in recent history or even today?
Hillsborough. The circumstances of that day have been perverted by The Scum to such an extent that some people still don't believe the truth.

Although I hate celeb obbsessed culture (have I spelt that right, ever?) I hate to admitt that I feel sorry for people who have 'trial by media' only to be found not guilty in the Courts. John Leslie being the example.

- Do you feel you have free access to a balanced news media?
- Is the internet a good thing for democratic news consumption?
Definately, but then it is up to the people themselves to take the time to get a balanced opinion. To do so takes time and effort which not everyone has in abundance.

- Is the internet going to be so?
I hope so, the reason I log onto CFC is to read the views of others. I get more from reading a post from someone who I completely disagree with than someone who shares my views. Certain exceptions of course, and providing the post isn't just pure rhetoric.

 

[warpus]

This is not the most important issue our country/world faces right now.

This happens very often when I'm watching/reading American news. Tom Cruise farts and it's front page news - yeahhh great.

 

[Rambuchan]

warpus: Agreed, but what do you think plays into this phenomenon? What's driving it? How to stop it?

TLC: Hope I answered your question with my post.

 

[The Last Conformist]

I think that fears that the 'Net is going to be overtaken by corporate interests stifling free exchange of information is overblown. In the absence of PRC-style state censorship, the 'Net is gonna remain a venue substantially open to all sorts of hobbyists, concerned citizens, grassroots movements, cranks, crackpots and scammers.

 

[Inqvisitor]

There is zero representation of my views in any outlet of the mainstream media. The media is motivated by powerful liberal agenda and does not care to allow actual intellectual freedom in expressing viewpoints. Name-calling and ridiculous accusations are used to scare people away from anything but the everyday liberalist status quo; things are especially awful on dedicated "news" channels like "CNN" or "Fox News."

Major issues like immigration or religion are simply dreadful to hear being reported on the mainstream newsmedia.

 

[Rambuchan]

TLC: Cheers for the input. I'm just finding out about the future of the internet issues. Here are some guys who disagree with you:

http://www.commoncause.org/site/pp.asp?c=dkLNK1MQIwG&b=1234951

http://www.democraticmedia.org/issues/JCnetneutrality.html

Inqvisitor: What would you say to those who claim that the 'liberal media' has been hijacked by the right? (As the folks in those two organisations providing the links are claiming).

 

[Sparta]

Spoiler long post :

As background, I'm in the Midwestern U.S., and have over the last few years begun watching less and less televised news in favor of finding my own news online. I still occasionally catch public broadcast news hours, BBC World, and to a lesser extent, major network evening news. Mostly try to get news from Google headlines, Yahoo, Wikipedia links once in a while, and here of course. Oh and at work I listen to a fair amount of AM talk radio - lame, but at least I get updated on issues. My local newspaper would be a joke, and at the moment I don't pay for any subscriptions to out-of-area papers.

When watching the headline item on TV, hearing it on radio or looking at the front page of a paper/website, do you ever think?

- This is not the most important issue our country/world faces right now.
Constantly. As others have noted, I find it very frustrating how much time is devoted to useless celebrity news and trivialites in lieu of actual significant world events.

- This is an important issue but why are we looking at it from this angle?
Depending on the source, fairly frequently. Network TV brings up real issues infrequently enough for it to be practically a non-issue (right now they're busy with their seasonal daily coverage of "Oh noes! It's the annual gas price hikes! This suxx0rs!" ). PBS actually often has two opposing guests to debate most relevant points, which helps. Talk radio stations often seem biased in one direction or the other, unfortunately.

- This is mirroring the government's line of debate. (Do replace govt with 'industry', 'gay lobby', 'oil lobby', whatever else you see fit)
Radio seems to me the worst offender in this regard; some of their coverage seems to parrot govt talking points on some issues. Our major TV networks are all owned by corporate conglomerates these days, so I wouldn't trust them on covering issues that hit too close to home (PBS just did a follow-up piece on emminent domain last night; the networks dropped that like a hot potato, after minimal coverage to start with).

- This is a one sided analysis of the issues at play.
As mentioned, I think radio is the worst at this. Network TV coverage can be pretty bad as well.

- Why are we not discussing <insert the issue you're concerned about>?
I've practically given up this cause with regard to mainstream news. The general public is apparently more interested in the threadcount of the blanket Katie Holmes popped her hellspawn onto than ever hearing news about Darfur.

- The use of graphics, music, editing is trying to lead my perception of the story.
Again I find network news to be a big offender in this area as well. Even the connotation of the words they select can be perceived as leading the viewing audience's perception. I suppose they have to be selective in word choice though, since they only have three sentences of fluff before heading back to commercials.

- This source is 'following the rest of the herd', rather than following its sense of journalistic integrity.
Network news is all the same. You can practically predict even their ordering of their stories if you've been following news throughout the day. What (very) little depth or insight they occasionally add to a simple repetition of the day's headlines almost becomes superfluous to the story often times, IMO. It's like Cliff Notes for the pseudo-aware.

- This is a ratings/sales based item and nothing but.
Absolutely. Half-hearted stoking of outrage, playing up irrelevant issues, throwing in token general-interest and feel-good stories - it all becomes one big debacle whose goal appears to be little more than self-sustenance.

When watching or hearing a debate on TV or radio, or after reading an article, do you ever think?

- A major party's contribution was left out of the debate/article altogether.
Quite often. Especially in network TV news, they devote so little time to individual stories, that there is literally room for only one viewpoint often times.

- The chairperson, presenter, journalist is biased.
Definitely. Again, with network news, the anchorperson's take is often the only one given, and typically comes across with varying degrees of clear bias.

- This is quite common, so, do you agree with their bias or not?
Occasionally, I suppose, but I'd much prefer to get both sides to (attempt to) be able to sort out the issue myself (PBS at least makes admirable attempts at this, IMO). I don't feel that just hearing 'your side' of an issue is nearly as valuable as being presented relevant points from both sides, such that you can be aware of the issues surrounding a given news item. Hearing only 'your side' probably makes unthinking people feel better though, and in ratings-driven news outlets seems to be becoming the trend.

- Do you think they should be biased?
No. I guess I feel that everyone is biased to some degree, but nonetheless, given the power of news organizations, I think that every effort should be made to simply present the issue, using as little rhetoric as possible.

- This guest was unfairly represented, his/her voice was not presented in a balanced fashion when compared to other guests.
Often times on television news (and online occasionally) it seems like a guest just really doesn't have enough time or space to elaborate on their stance. A symptom of limited resources I suppose, but it can be frustrating.

More generally:

- Can you think of any particular issues that were 'mishandled' or 'misrepresented' in recent history or even today?
Mostly just in the category of 'unrepresented', with Darfur of course leading the pack these days. Even on the major issues they do touch upon, mainstream news is so quick to abandon an issue completely that I find it frustrating to see their lack of long-term coverage of major issues. There may have been a lot of coverage of the NSA wire-tapping stories when it first broke, but I doubt we'll ever hear much about it again. As I'd mentioned before, there is still a lot of ongoing resentment towards emminent domain rulings, but the networks are busy covering Brad Pitt and Angelina Jolie these days. Immigration issues are only mentioned yesterday (due to Labor Day rallies) and when the citizen militia border patrol was organized. We never hear a single thing about South America save for the most blatant of saber-rattling done by Chavez. Basically, real issues only make headlines when something groundbreaking occurs.

- Do you feel you have free access to a balanced news media?
Hmm; not entirely. I get a whopping two network channels for free (woohoo!), but their news coverage is appallingly useless. Public broadcast (one station for me) at least makes efforts to present opposing sides of many issues, and I am grateful for that. Mostly though, for any modicum of in-depth (or untimely) coverage of issues, I rely on the internet, which I suppose technically I pay for in terms of broadband service.

- Is the internet a good thing for democratic news consumption?
I really think so. There will of course be grossly one-sided sites and poorly fact-checked media, but it at least allows the more informed to augment the news coverage they receive from multiple sources of their choosing. I suppose it will also facilitate grossly biased 'reporting' as well, but I still personally feel that the benefits will outweigh the negative repercussions.

- Is the internet going to be so?
I think and hope that as mainstream news fails more and more to meet the needs of its consumers in terms of balanced coverage of the significant news events of the day, more and more people will come to rely on the internet to augment their news coverage, and/or replace more traditional sources. A risk given the unregulated nature of the internet, but promising nonetheless IMHO, just due to the possibility of getting reporting back to a more grass-roots level and allowing dissenting voices their chance to be heard. Hopefully some semblance of integrity will remain in the majority of the more patronized sites and reporters.

Save for the first question, I'd answered mine without reading the others' answers first, in order to attempt to minimize my own bias, so sorry in advance if I was repeating what others may have offered. Good topic, Rambuchan - I'm going to go back and read the thread now so I can attempt to join in on the discussion if I can add anything.

Edit:

Immigration issues are far too often misrepresented by hardliners who are pro-immigration, failing to give the moderates a voice.

That's a very good point, IMHO (as well as your larger point regarding the debating of extremists). Just last night I was watching a debate regarding illegal immigration (since the protests led to token coverage), and the guests were a woman who could perhaps be described as moderately-to-fully anti-legalization and a gentleman whose views were so radical as to border on offensive. The woman easily shot him down simply by picking at his constant insistance that immigrants who'd come here illegally were automatically entitled to full citizenship and the rights that come with it, simply because they'd "made it" across the border (He kept saying that "For Mexicans, 'the game' ends at the border." (?)). It would have been much more useful and informative to have had more moderate debate about realistic goals and possible solutions. Virtually no time was allocated to discussing a reasonable legalization procedure or anything similar (regardless of my views, I would have been much more interested in hearing details of that than an age-old entrenched argument) - it was all 100% amnesty versus "that's ridiculous".

 

[Rambuchan]

Sparta: Damning stuff there bro! I agree down the line from what I have seen and heard on your news media.

Did you know that you're well within your rights to write in to a news station to complain? You're a consumer after all, yet many forget that your news can be complained about just as a dodgy car repair can be. And even if we are aware, not many do it.

This has been done before actually and it's been mainly directed at Fox News, surprise surprise. In fact, there is a growing lobby (best expressed in this damning documentary, called 'Outfoxed', here is their website) which is moving towards trying to hold News Corp responsible for contravening trading standards. The specific gripe being Fox's claim to be providing 'fair & balanced news' when in fact it is none of those.

 

[PrinceOfLeigh]

There is zero representation of my views in any outlet of the mainstream media. The media is motivated by powerful liberal agenda and does not care to allow actual intellectual freedom in expressing viewpoints. Name-calling and ridiculous accusations are used to scare people away from anything but the everyday liberalist status quo; things are especially awful on dedicated "news" channels like "CNN" or "Fox News."

Fox News is 'liberal'? In comparison to whom?

 

[Rambuchan]

Just last night I was watching a debate regarding illegal immigration (since the protests led to token coverage), and the guests were a woman who could perhaps be described as moderately-to-fully anti-legalization and a gentleman whose views were so radical as to border on offensive. The woman easily shot him down simply by picking at his constant insistance that immigrants who'd come here illegally were automatically entitled to full citizenship and the rights that come with it, simply because they'd "made it" across the border (He kept saying that "For Mexicans, 'the game' ends at the border." (?)). It would have been much more useful and informative to have had more moderate debate about realistic goals and possible solutions. Virtually no time was allocated to discussing a reasonable legalization procedure or anything similar (regardless of my views, I would have been much more interested in hearing details of that than an age-old entrenched argument) - it was all 100% amnesty versus "that's ridiculous".

And that's exactly what I'm talking about. It doesn't just happen on immigration issues either.

 

[Sparta]

Sparta: Damning stuff there bro! I agree down the line from what I have seen and heard on your news media.

Did you know that you're well within your rights to write in to a news station to complain? You're a consumer after all, yet many forget that your news can be complained about just as a dodgy car repair can be. And even if we are aware, not many do it.

This has been done before actually and it's been mainly directed at Fox News, surprise surprise. In fact, there is a growing lobby (best expressed in this damning documentary, called 'Outfoxed', here is their website) which is moving towards trying to hold News Corp responsible for contravening trading standards. The specific gripe being Fox's claim to be providing 'fair & balanced news' when in fact it is none of those.

Thanks, Rambuchan! That's a good point you make about voicing your dissatisfaction - I really should take the time to do so rather than simply rant about it here. I suppose if the volume of dissent got large enough, networks would have to take notice, you would hope. The website you linked seems to be a promising step in that direction - I will check it out, and I'm going to add that DVD to my Netflix queue. Thanks for the tips and info, and the excellent topic for discussion!

 

[warpus]

warpus: Agreed, but what do you think plays into this phenomenon? What's driving it? How to stop it?

Our culture is driving it - the idiotic belief that people who have more money than us are more important and that we should care what they're up to every single second.

To be more specific, I'd place the blame on the idiots who care what celebrities are up to, as well as the "news" outlets that think this is front page news.

 

[Rambuchan]

Our culture is driving it - the idiotic belief that people who have more money than us are more important and that we should care what they're up to every single second.

To be more specific, I'd place the blame on the idiots who care what celebrities are up to, as well as the "news" outlets that think this is front page news.

There is no doubting that this plays its part. However, I believe the 'eroded democracy' element of the debate is far more interesting and significant than people's tendancies to look at eye candy. They are not connected as far as I can make out, other than celebrity nonsense providing a nice smoke screen at times (which occurs by coincidence but provides the same smoke screen function). The 'eroded democracy' comes from higher, more powerful places and it's something that your everyday punter is largely powerless to control. We're definitely not party to those decisions that erode our democracy and leave us with sub-standard, slightly partisan news.

 

[Mise]

On the whole I'm fairly content with the media in the UK. I don't read the papers (unless it's just sitting there in front of me and I'm bored), but if I did I know that there are newspapers (or a combination of newspapers) that adequately represent my views on any issue. I'm not sure if that's quite what you were getting at, since you refer to "a" newspaper, meaning "newspapers in general"?

On TV the issues are not discussed in enough detail to gather every point of view, but in general I think the overview is adequate.