retired_tallgirl

The problem with the entire moan "boo hoo hoo the media influence the public" is that ultimately it is one of the biggest cop outs on the planet.

Blaming the media for influencing people is an embarrassing denial of personal responsibility.

If you believe anything you read in a paper and don't weigh it against whatever agenda the reporter, editor, owner and history of the paper might have, more fool you.

Taylor was a tactical fool, Robson wasn't but had to contend with player power and was too weak to go against the long-serving players/too senile not to realise 4-4-2 worked, Maclaren is out of his depth and is lauded in English football only because he took heed of new ideas because we are so **** at doing so.

Blaming the media for pointing out the shortcomings of various English football managers is more a beef with the manner they do it, not the fact that they're wrong.

retired_kpr

I think there's things other than the media that have a big impact on what people believe. It's all about what people hear from their friends, peers and family. That's what they end up believing, a few react against it but not that many. And it's very difficult for them to be persuaded away from those views. Good example might be what people think about immigration.

As other people have said, I think the media cater very much to what their readers already believe. If they write stuff that their readers don't agree with, they'll just stop reading that paper (I've done that in the past) rather than change their beliefs because of the paper.

Not sure whether they're more influential when it comes to football. Don't know whether the 'overpaid prima donnas' thing is fabricated by the media or just people telling it to eachother.

retired_tallgirl

tbf BG is correct in stating the power the media has because sadly the majority of conversation I've sat in from friends, peers and family invariably have their starting point as hearing something on the radio, seeing something on tv, reading something in the paper.

Perhaps your peer group is different but I doubt it.

aby

Seriously, I cannot understand why Robinson is in the net for England. Astounding.

aby

BG, it is the same over here. And, you are spot on that it is ultimately about power. The media want control. Of anything. Everything. Very scary. And, no doubt, the internet, while a great thing, has increased the media's influence. And, that is not a good thing.

retired_tallgirl

Of course it isn't just English media but anywhere to a greater or lesser extent and in "democracies" they're mainly owned by large corporations and in non-democracies, someone tied with power/relative of the president.

In the US for example, do you honestly feel that a bad story about a sponsor of Timewarner would appear on CNN?

Or that the government of any nation on Earth does not plant information in the media through a friendly contact - for example a member of MI5 spreading fear through the media to influence policy on wiretapping, people in the FBI doing the same about the Patriot Act to coerce an otherwise reluctant public to accept laws that hinder their freedom.

Otherwise known as statecraft.

The media is a tool for whomever already has power and it is likely that throughout the ages power will be achieved either monetarily or through force.

Of course the fact that people are willing to be compliant as their personal liberty is reduced shows impressive desire for someone else to take the big decisions, the general public not wishing to play their part in a democracy nor any degree of public responsibility just in case something goes wrong and they have to accept some part of the blame.

I realise the above is a difficult set of concepts for the majority of people to get and look forward to a trickle of mind-numbing replies from the few that at least attempt to do so.