Dallas-Mavs.com Forums - View Single Post

92bDad · 06-01-2010, 11:35 AM

Came across the following link recently:

http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/06/0...ion=cnn_latest

And it got me to wondering. What are the Pro's and Con's of the massive media age we are currently in?

In the article, the owner makes a point that the negative was the only one that survived the secret service. In other words, back then...the media didn't have access to nearly as much as they do today.

Back then, you also had a certain level of scrutiny within the media that some things did not get reported.

Sure, you still had scandals, you still had conspiracies...but did we see some benefits to perhaps not revealing everything?

Now fast forward to today...what do we have? We have a media, dominated by one political voice, but that does have a fair and growing voice of opposition. So basically, we can hear, see or read opposing political views on an issue. That being said, what are the Pro's and Con's?

It appears to me, that reports/opinions are broadcast at such a speed and intensity that we the public don't have time to assess what it is that is being told to us, without being told how we should think and feel about it?

Today, we appear to be in a society that it more interested with "Exposing" those who think differently than actually searching for the truth...or perhaps discerning that not reporting could be of greater benefit to the whole?

So I ask you, DMN friends and foes...What are the Pro's and Con's of todays Mulit-Media Information Super Highway?

06-01-2010, 11:35 AM	#1
92bDad Platinum Member Join Date: Oct 2006 Location: TX Posts: 2,505	Pros and Cons of the Media age Came across the following link recently: http://www.cnn.com/2010/SHOWBIZ/06/0...ion=cnn_latest And it got me to wondering. What are the Pro's and Con's of the massive media age we are currently in? In the article, the owner makes a point that the negative was the only one that survived the secret service. In other words, back then...the media didn't have access to nearly as much as they do today. Back then, you also had a certain level of scrutiny within the media that some things did not get reported. Sure, you still had scandals, you still had conspiracies...but did we see some benefits to perhaps not revealing everything? Now fast forward to today...what do we have? We have a media, dominated by one political voice, but that does have a fair and growing voice of opposition. So basically, we can hear, see or read opposing political views on an issue. That being said, what are the Pro's and Con's? It appears to me, that reports/opinions are broadcast at such a speed and intensity that we the public don't have time to assess what it is that is being told to us, without being told how we should think and feel about it? Today, we appear to be in a society that it more interested with "Exposing" those who think differently than actually searching for the truth...or perhaps discerning that not reporting could be of greater benefit to the whole? So I ask you, DMN friends and foes...What are the Pro's and Con's of todays Mulit-Media Information Super Highway?