Gary_Yngve Posted August 25, 2009 Share Posted August 25, 2009 There's currently a movement called "slow food." I think there needs to be a new movement called "slow news." Nowadays news spreads fast, but it is often inaccurate, contains spelling/grammar errors, and lacks deep analysis. The newspapers used to do slow news, but they are hopping on the bandwagon of fast news. There are few places left that still do slow news, and they have high entries of barrier for up and coming journalists. What do you think? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 There's currently a movement called "slow food." I think there needs to be a new movement called "slow news." Nowadays news spreads fast, but it is often inaccurate, contains spelling/grammar errors, and lacks deep analysis. The newspapers used to do slow news, but they are hopping on the bandwagon of fast news. There are few places left that still do slow news, and they have high entries of barrier for up and coming journalists. What do you think? Slow News is how we were able to firebomb Japanese cities and incinerate a million civilians without much public outrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Slow news is how the Soviet system was able to starve 10 million Ukrainians to death without much public outrage. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 What do you think? Slow news is olds. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 what we need is more news, less entertainment Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Nowadays news spreads fast, but it is often inaccurate, contains spelling/grammar errors, and lacks deep analysis. I think you've never looked at an old newspaper. I think the history of journalism is pretty consistent. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
bstach Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 what we need is more news, less entertainment I think Neil Postman would agree with you. His book "Amusing Ourselves to Death: Political Discourse in the Age of Show Business" is a classic treatise on the topic. Wiki version here: http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Amusing_Ourselves_to_Death Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 what we need is more diverse ownership of media: 30 years ago, the media industry contained over 50 independent companies (tv, radio, newspapers). Today, there are 5 corporate conglomerates that control more that 80% of all the media sales. The "free" market leads to olygopolies in media like in all other industries. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 (edited) or just socialize the news so we get the real truth at a snails pace.... Edited August 26, 2009 by pink Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 good job editing your own post. you must be socialist. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 good job editing your own post. you must be socialist. i was just giving it to u slow.... and i'm not a socialist, i'm a racist Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 u do like it slow....RIGHT? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
billcoe Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 what we need is more diverse ownership of media: 30 years ago, the media industry contained over 50 independent companies (tv, radio, newspapers). Today, there are 5 corporate conglomerates that control more that 80% of all the media sales. The "free" market leads to olygopolies in media like in all other industries. You totally nailed it earlier on the Fox news/Glen Beck protest thing, I'm heading over there to that thread now to copy your post and put it next to today's news which you already said/predicted a week ago. Nice call JB, but I wanted to thank you for giving me some knowledge which I might not have noticed had you not pointed out that the emperor had no clothes. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 you must be confusing me with the thread orginator Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 right???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 oh, so u like ur news fast and hard???? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 i can give it to u rough if u'd like... Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 "socialize" is the key word here folks. Every time someone notes that "free market" in practice means corporate consolidation into a few conglomerates that control more of everything (in this case what 'news' we see), the rightwing implies that the unstated premise is to "socialize". 'Socialize' means 'make fit for social purpose', which is actually a good thing. What do pink and his rightwing friends mean by "socialize"? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 who say's i'm a righty, someone has jump up and down on the other end of the scale round here. where did u get that definition from? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
olyclimber Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
ivan Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 slow news is how i figured out i could get 2 knuckles deep into my girlfriends' asshole while she was asleep w/o waking her Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
j_b Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Your talking points are rightwing. The etymologie of the word is: 1828, "to render social," from social (adj.). Meaning "to be sociable, to mingle" is recorded from 1895. Socialization "process of making social" is from 1840. Sounds like a good thing, right? But in corporate speak it means something entirely different that is bad. What does it mean? How is it bad to 'make things fit for social purpose'? Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
pink Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 Sounds like a good thing, right? But in corporate speak it means something entirely different that is bad. What does it mean? How is it bad to 'make things fit for social purpose'? depends on whose deciding what's fit for society... and what's their definition of "fit" is. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Fairweather Posted August 26, 2009 Share Posted August 26, 2009 slow news is how i figured out i could get 2 knuckles deep into my girlfriends' asshole while she was asleep w/o waking her You must have tiny liiito feeengers. Quote Link to comment Share on other sites More sharing options...
Recommended Posts
Join the conversation
You can post now and register later. If you have an account, sign in now to post with your account.