Quotes About Media

I was on television a couple of years ago and the reporter asked me, "How does it feel being on mainstream media? It's not often poets get on mainstream media." I said, "Well I think you're the dominant media, the dominant culture, but you're not the mainstream media. The mainstream media is still the high culture of intellectuals: writers, readers, editors, librarians, professors, artists, art critics, poets, novelists, and people who think. They are the mainstream culture, even though you may be the dominant culture."

There are no general-interest media that all of us can tap into. I'm not a good person to talk to about social media. I just avoid it. I'm suspicious also of the culture of venting. But the bigger question is, How can we in this media world have a genuine civic conversation? I mean, look at Franklin Roosevelt. He had these radio talks that all Americans listened to, and there was a common civic conversation that came out of it.

Why is the media doing what they're doing? Well, there are many answers for it. I don't mean to be insulting anybody here. Clearly, the media hates Trump, yeah, and clearly the media's a bunch of leftists and they don't like Trump's policies, and clearly this and clearly that. But there's another factor to this, too, that I don't think can be denied - and I think they're scared to death. Donald Trump is unraveling, bit by bit, major elements of the Barack Obama agenda.

PR got to be much bigger because of the emergence of digital media. Now we have hundreds of people who are, in a sense, manning embassies for Facebook and Twitter for brands. So the business in effect has morphed from pitching stories to traditional media, to working with bloggers, Twitter, Facebook and other social media, and then putting good content up on owned websites.

Social media is alluring, tempting, frustrating, etc. We mistake our interactions in social media as community, but is community possible when you don't even know what someone looks like or what his or her voice sounds like? I've enjoyed connecting with a lot of poets through social media, but do I truly know them if I haven't even met them yet?

It's clear the media, of course, always gives you the bad news. And people who rely on the media, like Mr. Trump, think that everything is a disaster. The media always tries to make everything into a disaster, but it's mostly rubbish. It's a point of fact that we're doing extremely well.

Let me say, it's - what a commentary it is on American media that you have to go to Russian television in order to get covered as a candidate in this election. It's pretty outrageous. And our media could solve that in a heartbeat if they actually opened it up, you know, but they don't. So I think that's more commentary on the crisis in our media.

You should form your own opinions, and I think that's why social media is good because it's an alternative source of information that can help you form your opinion, that might not be your parents, and might not be what the media is trying to force down your throat. So that's why it's important for artists and musicians to speak up, because for those people who have an inkling that their parents' views aren't right or that their parents don't have any views or whatever, that's an alternative source of information that can help them form their own opinion.

The New York Times is the greatest media company around, arguably, and the people at the New York Times know a lot more about making a giant successful media company than I do.

It's worse now because before I had 16 Republican, conservative people and the media had their favorite but they didn't particularly love anybody. Now it's myself really against the media.

I have been very concerned about media bias and the total dishonesty of the press. I think new media is a great way to get out the truth.

I am happy to note that the BJP as an organization is looking to creatively harness Power of Social Media. We have to ensure our Youth stays engaged in our Democratic process. We have to make our Democratic process accessible to them. Social media is an important tool for this.

The people we talk about around water cooler at work or at school, they're all the people who are visible in our media whether it's a sports star or a movie star or a writer or a politician. They are people that have received media exposure and have become important to us in a way that's not realistic.

I'm on social media a lot. It kind of revises or revives your career. Because of social media I get pictures and autographs from all over the place. If that wasn't around, people would wonder, "What's Frank Stallone up to?" Now they can just got to YouTube and see a million things. It's quite a bit of fun.

We live in a media culture and whoever controls and influences and uses media the best has the power for change.

Indeed, the best practical reason to think that social media can help bring political change is that both dissidents and governments think they can. All over the world, activists believe in the utility of these tools and take steps to use them accordingly. And the governments they contend with think social media tools are powerful, too, and are willing to harass, arrest, exile, or kill users in response.

You need to fight cases in the courts, but you certainly cannot rely on the courts, you need to testify in Congress and lobby your Congress person, but you certainly cannot rely on Congress. You need to speak out in the media, but you cannot totally trust the media either. You need to work within the academy because that's an influential opinion body. I think that one of the lessons that people have learned in the civil rights community is that it is generally not enough to focus on litigation in the courts.

The future belongs to social media. It is egalitarian and inclusive. Social media is not about any country, any language, any colour, any community but it is about human values and that is the underlying link binding humanity.

People continually ask me, "Why does the media do what it does? Why are they so obviously self-destructive? Why are they so obviously predictable? Why is the media so obviously biased? Do they not see how other people see?" No, they don't. But then again, they don't care, folks.

You may have noticed over the years that the UN became a bit more media-friendly, a bit more open to the media than in the past.

I don't immerse myself in the media narrative every day. I establish my own media narrative, and that's what I live.

I love the media, I live with the media.

We have a problem with several media taking only a part of the reality and not the whole picture. Some media in the world are more critical towards what's happening than others. It depends on the journalist, it depends how much information they have about the case and which perspective they are asking you from. All of these things can play a role.

The story is whether or not the villains, in the eyes of the media, will win or can be stopped. But when you change the dynamic and make it [Donald] Trump versus Hillary [Clinton]? Well, we already know the media has already once gotten caught up and captured and totally engrossed in the Trump story 'cause they don't know how it's gonna end day to day.

What's awesome about social media is you curate your own experience. That leads to the rise of niche celebrities, who are actually just as popular as mass celebrities, but because there's no incentive for traditional media to invest in them as celebrities, they find a home where people can follow them on Instagram.

There is a cultural factor promoting violence which nowadays undoubtedly is highly effective is the mass media. And particularly everything that enters our minds through pictorial media.

You're living in a matrix that's driven by social media. It's become glorified. You're suppose to be what you portray on social media, thats the perception.

Television is a media of crisis, which means that television is a media of accidents.

If there was a blog with five listeners or viewers, I had to be on it. Now I have to be on fewer media, but more substantive media.

The media is in charge of what you think. They're in charge of what you know and don't know. And any challenge to that, like alternative media or a president with direct access to the audience and doesn't need them, is a threat.

Obama hasn't lost his standing because of tricks played by the Republicans. He hasn't lost his standing because the media's not fair to him. He hasn't lost his standing or his approval number because the media spent four years attacking him like they did George W. Bush. This is all on him.

If it's a situation in which the public is being given access, you can't discriminate against the media and say, as a general matter, that the media don't have access, because their access rights, of course, correspond with those of the public.

So that all the people who say, you know, "All the media hates America." A lot of the media does hate America but this is a case of, actually, the press doing its best, I think, to do the right by national security. So good for them.

When the media worries about what Hillary’s hair looks like or what my hair looks like, that’s a real problem. We have millions of people who are struggling to keep their heads above water, who want to know what candidates can do to improve their lives, and the media will very often spend more time worrying about hair than the fact that we’re the only major country on earth that doesn’t guarantee health care to all people.

To be honest with you, I worry about concentration of ownership in media, where you have a handful of media conglomerates largely controlling what we see, hear and read.

While companies were getting comfy cozy with the idea of being on social media platforms, social media transcended those platforms, and few businesses have followed.

So successful has the ideological-political-cultural purge been executed that it is hard indeed to find vigorous liberals, and no energetic, coherent and cogent leftists at all can find expression in our controlled media and educational systems. Forget about wholesale culture- or civilization-critics like Marxists. Universities have to be purged of any "radicalism" that can see through to the roots of issues and pathologies, for the same reasons that workers have to have nascent unions aborted among them and contrarian newspapers and media have to be starved of advertising.

The smart people who are straight are involved in simply the media management of what has turned into a slow apocalypse, spreading starvation, exacerbated class differences, toxified agriculture, so forth and so on. I don't believe the Establishment thinks there are solutions. Their policy is basically the management of panic, which is hardly a forward moving approach to the adventure of human civilization.

Ultimately, it's possible that social media platforms will be designed as templates that the users themselves customize in terms of the best way to express their community and experience of life, and brands will have to simply follow suit.

I was a victim of what most people are a victim of, which is really, really just gulping down what was being fed to me by the media.

The awards season gives a chance for independent films to have a bit of longevity in the press and the media.

Journalism today is obviously in a major transition. Going to journalism school, learning how to write, working your way up in a little paper in Decatur, Georgia and then moving to Atlanta and then maybe to New York: it's just over. You have to have a whole other set of skills now. You have to be a videographer, you have to do social media. You can't do a long, thoughtful, insightful piece if you don't have the time to do reporting, particularly reporting around somebody who doesn't want to be known or an issue that doesn't want to reveal itself.

CNN lives in a cocoon, as do all the major media, in which they tell themselves every day that everybody watching agrees with them and that they represent a majority of the people and the thinking in this country. They lie to themselves daily about who their audience is and how large it is and how loyal.

But the weakness comes from these Westernised co-opted Muslim leaders who just want to look good in the eyes of the West and Western media.

The Sanders campaign showed that a candidate with mildly progressive programs could win the nomination, maybe the election, even without the backing of the major funders or any media support. There's good reason to suppose that Sanders would have won the nomination had it not been for shenanigans of the Obama-Clinton party managers. He is now the most popular political figure in the country by a large margin.

I think the media is very much like the inside-the-Beltway crowd. They're not average Americans themselves. They're under a lot of pressure from editors and publishers.

I got some media coverage for using the tail, the ear, the oink.

The Obama camp, the White House, and the media all condemned Romney before they condemned the attacks. Obama thought it more worthwhile to hit Romney for what he was doing than the terrorists for what they did. Romney got hit first.