Is there a difference between the colour of a report and the content of the reported?
www.spiegel.de/video/video-1007196.html
And, a little question: In what way could (do) politics make us curious? Is it its simplicity that makes it transparent?
It might be worth it to try an overview, following more or less official opinions into “political” camps of allowing reconstruction, however, the thought-media and their influence-flow may still be individual.
When I try to understand what is happening in the world or in those spheres that I am directly connected to, I encounter various possibilities to keep myself informed.
Watching this in my simple way, media are traditionally “the medium” between sender and receiver.
From my side, the receiver-side, it depends on to which media I am open to in order to define the next step of getting a grasp. How have I been educated, what opinions did my parents or my sourrounding, my study or my habits develop in me, that means – what do I accept as “medium”, and “can I discern quality”?
Then, there is the transitional step of the medium itself. Is the journalist, the transmitter and sometimes interpreter, able to really serve the content or present it neutrally? Sometimes, a critical view might even be the better decision, however, is distortion of content allowed at all? Now, where my mind gets curious and where I try to grasp “the real happening”, good media will not force me into a direction; they will enhance my hunger for good information, by feeding me good information; they enhance my curiosity by trying to display “the real happening” itself.
And then, there is the sender. We already do have in mind the fact of distortion. The tensions – and “attitudes”- between countries make it necessary not to say things directly. But in trying to learn how to think, we want to “understand” things directly… even in their complexity. That means, that we might constantly have to decode the “media information” into our pattern of receptivity, in order to discern what was really said.
This, of course, refers to world politics, crisis management, war-regimes and economic forces much more than to scientific contents of peace-politics. However, strangely, the media are very much connected to “money-making”, that means, almost every political decision should maybe be seen in its financial background.
After we once decoded – or clearly received the undistorted- view of “a sender” and whatever invisible powers stand behind him, we only started off. Clear communication is honest; it can serve interests of individuals or the community. Decoded information is interesting, because it might be interesting for other reasons than the one of politeness, that something is hidden from us. What – and why? Lovely curiosity; what could be interesting, when we gaze behind the media-technque of scandals? Or:
What do I want in the media?
How diplomatic – and guiding a discussion – “senders” can be –
How having-learned-to-talk and providing sights by not only secret intention, I could experience critically, and I admit, with some fascination, in this interview:
… how to start? Imagine that a media newbie tries to understand how media make the perception of the world. To establish impressions in people is not only an action that is displayed as a political or an act of conspiracy – it is simply and pitily an act of what people call themselves, the modern human.
Now, how can a media newbie try to find a nice and pleasureful way through the media jungle, being offered smiles of nonsmiling people, being offered celebrities and money standards?
This is nothing much but just my little try to get to know the different qualities and ambitions of certain types of international media and press. I will also try to develop a fair but critical view onto the american media, that do in my opinion colour other types of media in the world.
press pressure and truth release: media thoughts. 