Originally posted by Gruntboy
The press are all the same Robnark. They try to mould public opinion, not reflect it.
I'd suggest it's fairer to state that media publishers of large newspapers are interested in moulding public opinion. They hire people who tend to reflect their opinions, but who in any case toe the publisher's line.
And I thought Newspapers were supposed to report the news. 
Any media rep who claims that may actually believe it, but they also know that newspapers are basically Big Business. Personally, I think the first part is a cherished ideal that many people in the field cling to so as not to feel dirty. They are no more capable of admitting the truth to others than they are to themselves.
@Fable, I agree with you there. Why any of us give a damn what the media thinks when we should be aware of what our own kids are doing.
I'll tell you a little story. Back in the mid 1980s I was managing a public radio station in a big city in the northwestern portion of the US. My news director wanted to bring in another news director to act as an "expert source" while we did a special local hour-long feature on a nearby nuclear plant. I asked him whether his source knew a great deal about nuclear plants, or state government. No; he was just somebody who was a friend, spoke well, and was generally familiar with the issues.
I suggested he find another source who actually knew more about the issues. He went along, because I was his boss.
But you see the problem. It's club-ism: if you're a member, and you speak well, it saves having to build up a list of sources related to dozens of fields. And because the media uses itself in a recursive process as experts on everything, the audience (which is all too willing to be convinced by superficialities) takes them at face value. The sources begin to believe themselves to be experts because they're in use constantly. But when you get right down to it, they're nothing more than high-paid reporters with the looks of models.
