Media.
The media is no joke, particularly the British media. It definitely influences opinion and can have an adverse affect on how a story is spread.
Two examples I noticed today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305160/Former-Liberal-Democrat-leader-Charles-Kennedy-plays-Labour-defection.html
and:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/labourparty/Charles-Kennedy-defection-claims-are.6487763.jp
The Daily Mail's headline states that Charles Kennedy is only "playing down" his defection, whilst the second pretty much cements that all stories of defecting are rubbish. It is interesting how the Mail's headline suggests there was still talks of defection and that Kennedy's denials are only attempting to mute their insignificance. Yet the whole article of the Mail actually makes it pretty clear he is not defecting. Sometimes I only read through a headline to get a general sense of something and the media knows this can occur.
There is this post made in the LibDem voice:http://www.libdemvoice.org/kennedy-defection-rumours-another-reason-journalists-are-losing-the-publics-trust-20821.html
which explores the journey of this story and gives a reasonable assessment of how the media can play up to something which is just not there. The only thing I would argue is that the media is not losing the public trust. The public will play lip service to not trusting the media, but then most will quote what so and so has said to support a position. I do it to! But throughout history, media sources such a newspapers were used as propaganda to support a particular viewpoint and to convince the actual reader of the "rightness" of a particular position.
The mosque story in NY is an interesting one too. You had some media reports making out it was on the actual site of the twin towers, others that it was around two blocks away. Depending on your view of this issue (for me it does not matter about where it is), but you can see the obvious problems with the suggestions and the implications. I have spoken to a-lot of people about this story and some have aired disgust at a muslim building being located on the actual site, but not having an issue with it two blocks away. (I had an American friend suggest it was nothing to do with the rest of the world, but should be only open for debate within the U.S. but then that is another matter altogether). But there is also a debate to be had on whether this story was overblown because August is usually a quiet time for stories. the media just HAD to find some more things to report on, so they create a bigger furore over something which is in actuality only a small story within a bigger narrative. Granted that the floods in Pakistan, the global financial crisis, the Israel/Palestine peace talks, the Iran nuclear shite etc etc....are not enough!
Two examples I noticed today:
http://www.dailymail.co.uk/news/article-1305160/Former-Liberal-Democrat-leader-Charles-Kennedy-plays-Labour-defection.html
and:
http://scotlandonsunday.scotsman.com/labourparty/Charles-Kennedy-defection-claims-are.6487763.jp
The Daily Mail's headline states that Charles Kennedy is only "playing down" his defection, whilst the second pretty much cements that all stories of defecting are rubbish. It is interesting how the Mail's headline suggests there was still talks of defection and that Kennedy's denials are only attempting to mute their insignificance. Yet the whole article of the Mail actually makes it pretty clear he is not defecting. Sometimes I only read through a headline to get a general sense of something and the media knows this can occur.
There is this post made in the LibDem voice:http://www.libdemvoice.org/kennedy-defection-rumours-another-reason-journalists-are-losing-the-publics-trust-20821.html
which explores the journey of this story and gives a reasonable assessment of how the media can play up to something which is just not there. The only thing I would argue is that the media is not losing the public trust. The public will play lip service to not trusting the media, but then most will quote what so and so has said to support a position. I do it to! But throughout history, media sources such a newspapers were used as propaganda to support a particular viewpoint and to convince the actual reader of the "rightness" of a particular position.
The mosque story in NY is an interesting one too. You had some media reports making out it was on the actual site of the twin towers, others that it was around two blocks away. Depending on your view of this issue (for me it does not matter about where it is), but you can see the obvious problems with the suggestions and the implications. I have spoken to a-lot of people about this story and some have aired disgust at a muslim building being located on the actual site, but not having an issue with it two blocks away. (I had an American friend suggest it was nothing to do with the rest of the world, but should be only open for debate within the U.S. but then that is another matter altogether). But there is also a debate to be had on whether this story was overblown because August is usually a quiet time for stories. the media just HAD to find some more things to report on, so they create a bigger furore over something which is in actuality only a small story within a bigger narrative. Granted that the floods in Pakistan, the global financial crisis, the Israel/Palestine peace talks, the Iran nuclear shite etc etc....are not enough!