Dear José,

Regarding news programmes, the situation changes from country to country. Generally, governments often try to influence the media which may become totally deformed in some countries. In these countries, state television channels sacrifice enormous amounts of money to manipulate citizens.  

Well some political parties pay for their air time, so TV stations have little choice in the matter regarding the content and how it is packaged (mostly to attack their opponents and gain favor for themselves). In this light, it's up to the public to decipher truth from propaganda.

Many thanks,

Debra

Dear José,

Regarding news programmes, the situation changes from country to country. Generally, governments often try to influence the media which may become totally deformed in some countries. In these countries, state television channels sacrifice enormous amounts of money to manipulate citizens.  

Since its beginnings, television in the United States has been intertwined with political processes of every type, ranging from coverage of major political events and institutions to effects on campaigns and elections. From its early position as a new medium for political coverage in the 1950s, television quickly supplanted radio and eventually newspapers to become by the early 1960s the major source of public information about politics.

While television's role in political campaigns and elections is difficult to overestimate, television's significance in the political process carries over to the effects on governing the nation. Television "keeps an eye" on government institutions and the governing process. Every branch of government is affected by this watchdog.

http://www.museum.tv/eotv/politicalpro.htm

Dear José Eduardo,

Tv in every country has an owner.

The owner decides what transmitting and what censorship.

Tv in all countries is not objective.

If the TV is not objective, the political TV cannot be objective.

NHK (official English name: Japanese Broadcasting Corporation) is Japan's national public broadcasting organization and is funded by viewers' payments of a television license fee. However, NHK is much under control of the cabinet these days, and is criticized that its political news coverage is unfairly inclined to the views of ruling parties.

Andras has spoken for many of us in regions of the characteristics he has described.  This is why we are getting news from social media, to get a good balance.  AND EVERYONE HAS TO READ BETWEEN THE LINES, BESIDES READING THE WRITTEN TEXTS.  From mobile.  Thanks.

Dear Cecilia,

Have you meant BBC among English communicating channels you know?

Please, watch a channel in Central Europe, in Russia or China and I do not dare to mention the channels of well-known dictatorships.  

Current political TV coverage is over doze, superficial, repetitive, and influenced by Government. It may vary country to country. Some tomes execrated.

Dear José,

I'm sorry that I currently have a work commitment to meet, and won't be able to participate further for a while, but may I say here that accusations of bias can depend which angle you see things from. In Britain, the BBC is much loved and its News service was long regarded as fair and globally ranging, and incontrovertibly more 'in-depth' than is ITV's News.

However, politically, it depends what the reference means as to its being 'the most subjective' of all, worldwide? The BBC has long been under attack from the Left as being too Right-wing, and from the Right-wing as being too Left. This divided opinion was vocalised under succeeding governments, Right and Left, from the 1970s' under Margaret Thatcher, through to the 2000s' and the days of Tony Blair to now. The present [Conservative] government is currently overhaullng it, both in regard to political and to general programming. A public consultation has been set up as part  of the democratic process and closes this week. The public has not been made aware of this public consultation; I have found so far that none of my friends were aware of it. Most responses will presumably be received from activists and extremists, whether Left or Right. It is unclear what weight, if any, will be put on this consultation by the governing body. We hope not to see the sad demise of our beloved BBC, with reduced funding for its excellent documentaries, world affairs programmes, and 'national treasures' such as Sir David Attenborough.

It is good enough for politicians and business people who make TV advertisements to lead audiences in emotions and get their votes but bad enough for real person to come to that venue and promote his/her ideas as it requires lots of money. No society has made a socio-political change because of the emergence of TV ads and social medias but only offers  tremendous advantages to politicians to get access to society through.

One undeniable advantage these medias offer is they enable more social members to participate in political affairs and in voting to influence a would be more bad and dangerous person not to come to political powers by only his/her supporters alone. 

agree with George

The political TV coverage depends on sources & these sources decide what to highlight & what to minimize. They can make a mountain out of a molehill (or blow an event up or dramatize it) or they can shrink the news about an event to the point of insignificance. This leads to the conclusion that the political TV coverage is biased & it just serves interests of those who control the main sources (they are few in number on global scale).

TV & the rest of the media are led by knowledgeable persons or agencies in many areas. They try to shape mentalities, attitudes, tastes, approvals, preferences, liking, and hatreds in certain directions. Very few persons (such as scientific scholars endowed with critical thinking) are outside the cycle of influence of the media's invasion.

I don't believe TV at all and try not to watch it.It's a kind of manipulation of mass consciousness.It's foolish to waste time on it. Besides,it can cause depression. Boring,dangerous,false.I find answers on my questions in the Internet,analyzing,reflecting,interpreting information.

A quick addition before I immerse in work. The BBC has a fantastic range of covering world political news. Last night we saw coverage of both 'sides' of British politics and EU developments, but also 5-minute slots each on events and political reaction in [from my memory] the USA, Turkey, West Bank, Russia, Greece, North Korea and Syria. All of it seemed to me unbiased, with viewpoints of both 'sides' represented in contentious areas [apart from coverage where nationals aren't allowed to speak freely]. I'm enormously grateful for a balanced overview - not available on commercial TV, other than [more briefly] on Channel 4. 

Functioning of TV New Channels is not uniform across the world so far political coverage is concerned. In fact most of the TV New Channels are now TRP minded and running as news traders. They telecast and offer enough time to the news that is saleable. Very few Channels appear to be concerned of their social obligations. Channels run by State or corporate houses often influenced by their interests sometimes leading to superficial or misleading coverage for citizens. However, despites all odd this electronic media hold immense capacity to influence the way people think and act.

As @Prieto wrote, each TV has its owner. You may imagine what may happen if the owner is also an the chief of political party. This has occurred few years ago in my country.

In my portfolio we offer journalism studies and have excellent alumni from those programs of study. Increasingly, the design of those programs have concentrated on convergent journalism, rather than the previous design whereby students might elect to develop skills and knowledge in print, television, or radio. This is due largely to changes in technologies and media; esp. online and social media.

More specifically, in relation to the stimulus question, we have specialisations, such as history, politics, etc so that graduates have some scholarly understandings of the areas in which they might become journalists. However, there are at least two major limitations here - namely, not all areas of reporting are addressed (e.g. education, medicine, sport, business, etc might not be adequately developed) and the media tends to have journalists interview journalists rather than the knowledgeable people in those fields. This leads to situations, such as recently, when I viewed journalists interviewing journalists about whether or not journalists deal well with bias. Many panel discussions reflect this with journalists discussing major news and current issues with other journalists, who make a claim to be 'experts' on those events and issues.

I meant to add a concluding comment that - we are seeing more superficial, misleading political coverage as fewer knowledgeable people are providing evidence-informed commentary and analysis on politics. In Australia, it's not difficult to identify the bias evident in relatively poor quality political reports by various journalists.

i really agree with George and Ivo.

Dear all, 

In general TV depends on  advertising and prod public opinion on more or less sordid scandals which demand only in emotions and not ask for refection or reason. On average the news are tailored to the editorial line and of course bring biases.

Have a nice time

Helena

Media should be objective and unbiased, with the social media one can also check the reality of the news cast.

Inspite of this, the TV is still subjective, as it is controlled by Government and business houses who have their own interests to be protected.

In India, almost every major political party has its own or affiliated TV channel

If you think that most of the TV channels belong to broader media corporations, then you will also notice that each channel's policy is strictly towards one or another task: to what owners of the corporation believe that is good for their wallet (of course they don't announce it, they rather prefer to sell it as a puplic good).

An example is the TV channels in Greece, last 5 years, the 'memorandum" years.

All TV channels followed the agenda of their owners (who belong in the Greece oligarchy), thus told people how good is the MoU with IMF, ECB, EE.

Even one media group that seemed to talk against MoU, now (since they have invested to money change from euro to drachma), they support current Government.

Almost no TV channel tells the truth now in Greece.

Total failure...

We, all People, know that Day and Night combines to form a FULL Day that means EVERYTHING HAS A DAY VIZ. GOOD THINGS AND NIGHT VIZ. DARK, BAD THINGS. So, personally, I feel the current political TV coverages has good effects and bad effects of the society though IT DEPENDS ON THE SOCIETY THAT WHAT DOES REALLY SOCIETY WANTS FROM THIS .

In some case TV has been shown only part of the events, what can't lead to correct conclusions by citizen, .In many case TV just became a very powerful instruments of propaganda in the government hands. So, it is dependent from concrete country/period. Ideally, TV must be a tool for information only, reflect all events/points of view, but this seems not the case in our time in many places. Internet usuaally have nmuch more spectrum of opinion, BUt not all of the people use it and majority of the people mainly focus of one point of view, and do not read alternative one..

I agree to the colleagues who think  that main task of TV and other mass media - to form public opinion in support of TNC, government, main political parties or business  groups. But, a lot of information in the Internet belonged to the same sort. It is sad that despite all the technical achievements, we can  believe to news passed from person to person only...    

I was a TV addict at home, wanted to watch news, but over a period of time i found watching news itself was entertaining rather than something content oriented. I started swapping channel after channel to see news programme of various channels. Especially to vouch for the happening of an event, each channel would report their own version concocted and edited to suit them. "politics is quite entertaining to watch" in India. @ Irina, Nizar, Demitris, Helena and many, I agree with you all.

The practical conclusion of the mutual agreement:  we do not watch TV for 8 years already :)))

George, Alex and others - you make me so very grateful for the BBC. They produce wonderful documentaries, with new ones seen here every week. Aside from current affairs, sciences and the arts, I learn much from them about aspects of my own subject - classical civilisation, and specifically Roman history and archaeology. These beautifully filmed documentaries are usually written and presented by leading professors in each subject, each episode an hour long and so, in-depth. One, for instance, recently focussed on the evidence for the ancient Greek love poetry of Sappho!

Prof. José Walter Pedroza Carneiro, from Universidade Estadual de Maringá (Paraná, Brazil), has sent me his answer:

In my opinion, TV coverage (talking about news) is the largest lost of energy that exist in the world. Only those channels of interview, where different personalites give their opinion about some issue deserve credit. Good times when they turn off at 10 p.m.; Here, in Brazil, only four or five channel is important: NBR, TV Senado; TV Escola; TV Justiça; Arte 1and a little bit more, but all of them are hide in the middle of nothing. The International channels are good to learn language: to improve your listening if you have money to pay more and more. The worst, if you want to pay a la Carte, they say no. Still worst, in the afternoon some programmes and films are not suitable for children. On the other hand, some people loves football, natural world and so on; but after the FIFA who knows what happens in Spain and Italy with those clubs paying million to their athetes. What are our money sustaining? In Brazil, the afternoon has been a shower of blood. For what? My question is: Are the crime a factor of economic development to sell safety to the population? Buildings, eletric wire, cameras and so on. Can we believe in the News? Television is like Weather Forecast, the best is to keep the umbrella close to your hands. I knew about the show of Ennio Morricone in Brazil one day later; before nothing. This news had deserved a trip of 600 km to São Paulo to stay in the show. How many singers have their show and we never new about the day and place? Of course, there are religious channels and many channels, but they are a segment apart. The internet is the better option, but the language is the barrier in undeveloped countries when we talk about the population of a country.

I hope this vision about this terrible segment of news, not information or education, can help you.

Best regards,

Walter

Politics and media control

http://www.thehoot.org/media-watch/media-business/politics-and-media-control-6046

TV is a medium that bring news from far and near and it needs to provide political or social news as it is.   

Political coverage on TV sometimes leads to:

Exaggeration of even a a small event/ phrase/issue into a really big one - leading to conflicts and more conflicts.

Twisting the statement of the to suit the needs of the news channels - news channels may be funded or owned by the political leaders.

Turning of tables via the media - sometimes hilarious, idiotic and out of place.

Sensationalizing news and issues even media trial of murder cases that happens every time there is a high profile incident. 

I have often seen debates on political issues becoming a place where no one listens to the other rather it becomes a noisy place where every one gives his own view without listening to the others.

Brenda, the Canadian situation sounds much like Britain. Here, we [the public] have had enough of 'the mean, nasty and divisive' style of politics that we have endured for many decades. Both sides would promise a caring government - until in power, when they start wrecking citizens' lives - or taking us to war and wrecking lives across the world. The media encourages this as a supposed populist approach, with lurid headlines particularly in the Murdochian media. The newly introduced approach by the Corbynists is towards a more thinking, more caring, society and more peaceful politics - and, hopefully, a more peaceful future. But the Press is still decrying this as madness - and a large part of the electorate reads only, and believes only, the headlines.

For an amusing view of what the BBC may become, if the proposed governmental changes to it prove to be draconian enough: https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=je11_8DIdCw 

I 'm watching some BBC documentaries on historical subjects and they are excellent . In this thread, the BBC is the only TV station that gets thumbs up. I must say as well that the Spanish television (RTVE) documentaries I've watched --on the Democratic Transition of the 70s and the Spanish Civil War-- are also of very high quality.

In Germany there are some channels like Sat1 and Arte who try to overcome the germancentric and eurocentric Point of view and go more into the depth with their docus. Germans in TV and Press sometimes seem to be especially fond of criticising others and themselves without finding a constructive road. And besides the biggest part of it is just like in the antic Rome: give them bread and Circus Plays. That keeps them away from thinking twice.

I like many documentary, concert programs of http://tvkultura.ru/, BBC, DW, and http://www.medici.tv/. As for a political TV, I watch it only of cause of my research projects. “A talk about an evil multiplies the Evil” (Abba Dorotheus Palestinian, VI c.)

In general political coverage on TV media is not objective. Information from for-profit media is misperceiving as compared to those from the non-profit media due to obvious reasons (TRP). A tendency to play up with stories that are sensational like controversial statements by political leaders, scams, scandalous incidents, etc. and presenting such news in exciting manner. These days, media paying greater attention and time in covering sensationalist stories and issues that affect or likely to affect public life and the whole world receive little attention.

Yes, to the respondents above! If we didn't have the BBC and Channel 4 in the UK, the tabloid Press and commercial TV would gain mass control in feeding their propaganda [bread and circuses] to The Plebs - a term which is being used by the Establishment for the British electorate.

See this sardonic overview in the eponymously named Independent http://www.independent.co.uk/voices/theres-only-one-way-to-find-out-if-corbyn-is-fit-to-be-prime-minister-did-he-kneel-in-front-of-her-a6732311.html

Each party has their own version of news telecast, with contradictory views for the sake of protecting their party and voters.

http://tamilo.com/2016TamilTVShow/AyuthaEzhuthu/03/Mar02a.html

José -

There is too much lowbrow and deceptive entertainment, not enough facts and scientifically-/logically-based analyses, in what passes for the news, in many cases today.  Reporting is so important to the world.  It can help increase understanding and reduce conflict. But I think that the news industry is too sensitive to ratings, and monetary issues are always a concern.  In addition, it appears that news used to be more unbiased in the US than it is in the US now, though I know that that has fluctuated over time.  (Consider "yellow journalism.")  And it seems the bias has accompanied a turn toward intolerance regarding issues such as immigration. 

An op-ed columnist for either the New York Times, or the Washington Post, I can't remember which, or her name, once made a remark about those who would not let facts interfere with their world view.  The problem seems worse now.  And many in politics, and the media, seem all too happy to appeal to the worst in human nature, if they can take advantage of it.  And facts and science are often inconvenient.

On the other hand, you can still find thoughtful, evidence-based analyses.  Consider columnist Paul Krugman.   And I think that often facts may be reported clearly, and without bias.  But one always has to consider how different reported 'facts' may or may not be credible in an overall view. 

Thank you - Jim

Dear Jose,

In democratic system independent media plays an important role in opinion making and it has impact on common man indeed. Political parties use the media to propagate their ideologies and and try to popularize it. 

Sponsored T.V. debates are generally on superficial issues take us away from the real issues, but not always. Similarly TV News and debates affect public opinion but superficially.

Most of the time TV Anchors remain focused on retaining the audience and for that they sensitized the news item. In this term they exaggerate it

In spite of these shortcomings the TV programmes affects the public opinion.  

Depends if is unbiased, but few also bring some truth to mass public otherwise would be hibernated by politicians.

some of the channels are being run by the politicians itself some others are dominated by some political parties....whereas some are started by some capitalists who are associated with political persons or parties... actually politics and capitalism together  trying hard to rule this world... Only some channels are unbiased in this world otherwise what is being presented is oriented by the political system of this world...

The political coverage in TV these days depends on the funding source for the TV channel, so they are, most of the time, misleading as they cause feelings of melancholy and depressing

I think the TV coverage these days sensationalize and sell the news. Watching news and switching channels have brought me to the conclusion that every channel has a set of experts who have opinion on every aspect of the problem. At times when one hears their analysis one is able to see that discussions are only for the sake of discussions and nothing fruitful comes out of it.

In many instances in the debates conducted live the issue seems to take a backseat and no one literally no one listens to the other.

Regards

Vibha 

TV courage is the  source of media which promotes to a wide variety & coverage for social & political expression for the citizens.

Media is certainly for the wide coverage & in this line i wish to co-relates my early expression 

Media does an very important task to bring the facts before the viewers may be on the political & economical reviews where within the line for which they deserve the compliments .

Very often they calls in their program both of the government & opposite parties together for lively discussion & quite often opposite party side tracking the main issue argument with the abused of course  media conveyor quite intelligently  tackle the issue however in such cases very often political parties fail their role  in such important areas .

Instead of gathering the various groups media should bifurcate the events with the selected few parties so that viewers can enjoy & also appreciate the program .

Media carry out program for economical discussion in a very right manner & with their presentation they give right justice to the viewers .

This is my personal opinion & with this our TV coverage is for the information & also for expressing the views of different line of political ,social ,thinkers .Very often the discussion becomes interesting but why calling & inviting the participant of different parties,with the different thinking manner,the discussion becomes in the form of the hot exchange views without understanding & appreciating the views among other participants & this is to me not a healthy practice as the  viewers or citizens may not have with them a correct information,correct guideline ,very purpose of TV Media gets defeated.

It found everywhere the same situation

Prof. José Walter Pedroza Carneiro, Universidade Estadual de Maringá, Paraná (Brazil), sent me his answer:

"Television is just entertainment. Despite this, hardly ever we can watch an information that can be useful. Most of the time, it is the foremost equipment to consume energy within a country. News, we can not believe, of course. As they are specialized in bad news as crime and war, this is a good information to which countries is dangerous to have a trip. Today, the internet is the best source of information because the citizen is the reporter and we can choose which information can be read."

I remember having to debate someone in a class in high school.  We each had our uninterrupted time to present an argument, and we each had our, again uninterrupted, time to present a rebuttal. 

Now, we see on TV, people talking over each other, shouting, and finally resorting to a comment not worthy of a locker room.  A news reporter refered to it as "weirdly personal."

There used to be presidential 'debates' that still weren't actually debates, but at least there was some sense of decorum.  You can forget about expecting that from some people now.  

Conclusion:  One should be sophisticated in high school, but running for President of the United States just isn't that important. 

Dear Prof. José Eduardo Jorge, thanks for your invitation to participate in this your intersting thread (I have read some / most of the replies) . But unfortunately I can't post a reliable comment here  'cause I refuse looking political discussions in German and Austrian TV (="talk rounds" with many varying "titles/headers").Reading content and "news" presented in up to 3 different newspapers as well as official NEWS broadcasts in German as well as Austrian public and private TV-and radio broadcasting stations are the sources I use for my personal information (also on political situation). When it happens that I into a TV-talk/discussion it is most likely that I change the channel rapidly....(;-()

I don't watch TV (last 15 years). In our country TV is too stupid and it insults the intellect.

TV is controlled by the government and oligarchy, it is just channel for translation of propaganda and stupid ad. Probably, it depends on the country, but in Russia a lot of scientists don't watch TV for this reason.

Internet is more independent place and it is possible to found some different meanings about everything. It is necessary to have a lot of time for finding in Internet and analysis of political news for building an objective picture. It is a serious problem - we don't have enough time and we have to trust just few news resources, which are objective in our opinion.

I don't watch the polical news intently, but every day I read the breaking news from few sites (BBC and three Russian sites) to be aware about the main processes in the world.

Best regards,

Denis       

I agree with your points.

Now a days too many channels. Only few are informative.

In my country DD (Doordrasan) Govt. channel I beleive exactly cover the news without exaggeration. Do you beleive that no body watch those channels today especially when some cricket matches are telecasted. I like the channels DD, Etv-2 watch once in a while.

People too want spicy programs.

I feel damn bore/irritate to watch TV from many years (15-20). Especially when they show their over enthusiasm to telecast the private affairs of some celebrities (Eg. Aiswarya Roy's marriage, NDTV I still remember and got irritated). For news I just read news papers online.

Dear Jose, 

I believe that the political TV coverage in many Polish TV chanels is superficial especially to what is happening on other continents. There are only mentioned information from the Middle East and Asia or South America while dominate European affairs or interior, local. One solution is in regularly watching and reading the information services such as CNN, Reuters, BBC, France 24h etc. This can broad own understanding of the landscape of foreign affairs. 

Hi, I would say that media always work according to certain agenda which serve political parties. Hence all media reports are presented in a way to sell their views and promote their concepts. hence, in most cases TV coverage is really misleading.

TV channels have their own political interest in every country.Needless to say, they provide biased information in politics

TV and society: moral conflict.,

http://ruspravda.info/Televidenie-i-obshchestvo-nravstvenniy-konflikt-3197.html

Problem with TV is the journalists always look spicy stuff and if they do not find, they add it.

Most of the time TV coverage is misleading and meant to create sensation in society.

Dear all:

I tried to translate --using Google-- the interesting Irina's contribution. Basically the article about "Television and Society Moral Conflict" refer to the changes experienced by Russian TV content after the Soviet era.

It says that Soviet television --as well as the other media in the USSR- were aimed at propaganda of Soviet ideology. But, at the same time, TV channels had many cultural and educational programs --oriented, for example, to popular science--, some of which were used at school and higher education. This kind of television corresponds to the period 1959-1991. . 

Since the beginning of the 1990s, post-Soviet Russian TV started to shift towards entertainment. The main reason --according to the article-- has been economic. After the collapse of the USSR, TV channels, with rare exceptions, have moved to a commercial operating model, constantly looking for ways to increase their income. From a "machine for ideological influence", TV has turned into a "machine for making money". The primacy of ideology and political propaganda was replaced by the primacy of commercial advertising.

Channels seek in any ways "to catch up with the audience", and the easiest way to do this is through a rich entertainment programming. This practice leads to an ever greater shift of content to all sorts of entertainment. The article concludes that 75% of Russian TV content in 2012 was entertainment

Dear Jose,thank you, I'd like to go on-entertainment,"fly-by-night" films,vulgar talk-shows,chanson music (the rogue songs),substandard ads,coverage of tragic events or "the glass as half empty",meaningless talks about well-being of ordinary people...TV is designed for mediocre people.Those order the music,who pay for it.

Look up Lucretia Murphy she completed her thesis on this topic and has her paper uploaded onto research gate.

TV coverage for political junkies and insomniacs

http://www.irishtimes.com/news/tv-coverage-for-political-junkies-and-insomniacs-1.547965

I think it's mixture of all of that

In my opinion, it misleading more than the rest.

Dear all:

The following Colleagues sent me their answers:

Prof. Mirza Arshad Ali Beg, Independent Researcher (Pakistan):

"TV coverage whether political or apolitical follows the principles of Social Pollution and is aimed at spreading the message and repeating them hundreds of times just to make it sound true and trustworthy. However, the process of continuous repetition is part of the game of politics which is the real but derogatory name of the long handle of Social Pollution. As such the programs are sponsored at heavy cost, since the aim is to convey the message to all and sundry. Like it or not; you have to put up with this change in lifestyle."

Prof. Parida Aditya, Luleå University of Technology, Luleå (Sweden):

"Media coverage has been seen and criticized for failing to give the public the amount and type of information it needs to understand and critically evaluate. The media coverage has also been criticized as often superficial and misleading. Journalists have been observed and criticized for being inadequately trained, coerced and influenced by the political parties and as such they are unable to separate the significant from the sensational and unable competently to monitor the news. A number of studies on the issues related to these criticisms confirms these."

Prof. Francesco Nardelli, International Union for Conservation of Nature, Gland (Switzerland):

"I can only speak for Italian one that it is possible to be all three, from case to case."

Speaking about our TV Channels, I think they mislead a lot, and are very biased. Must be why more people are watching Soap Serials

Narayanan

I Strongly believe that News channels in India are highly misleading, Story maker, repetitive and highly interested in TRP..

Same is here in USA. I almost stopped watching news channels. 

Prof. Kevin Stoda, Salalah College of Technology, Şalālah (Oman), sent me his answer:

"The USA presidential campaign is carried our poorly by privatized media and conglomerates in the USA. It is so poor that mainstream media only gave Bernie Sanders about 3% of the coverage of Clinton and Trump prior to January of this year. Both Trump and Sanders depend on Social media a lot, too."

Media is absolutely controlled in my country and  is dictated by the government what and how to show or report to ´ overhearing audience´ .  Political coverage is both superficial and misleadng.That is why I never trust the reliability and validity of political news coverage.

Neil Postman was absolutely right. His position is/was that television, and the news in particular, is dumbed down to mere entertainment. He also refers to old presidential debates that went on for hours, during which ordinary people could grasp what was going on and they were also very keen listeners. (Not like those stupid arguments that we see these days in the US presidential campaign ... )

Here is a link to his most famous book:

https://zaklynsky.files.wordpress.com/2013/09/postman-neil-amusing-ourselves-to-death-public-discourse-in-the-age-of-show-business.pdf

Media need to be controlled and never be given chance to biased news and programmes -- as effects are exponential and may have a huge negative impact propagation in minutes / hrs if wrongly presented