See other Editorial Articles
Title: Television News: Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death? [Another Fantastic Read]
Source:
Rutherford Institute
URL Source: http://www.rutherford.org/articles_db/commentary.asp?record_id=722
Published: Aug 10, 2011
Author: John W. Whitehead
Post Date: 2011-08-10 09:05:58 by Eric Stratton
Keywords: None
Views: 104
Comments: 6
Television News: Are We Amusing Ourselves to Death?
By John W. Whitehead
8/2/2011"We've got the bubble-headed bleach-blonde who comes on at five. She can tell you about the plane crash with a gleam in her eye. It's interesting when people die. Give us dirty laundry." --Don Henley, "Dirty Laundry"
Anyone who relies exclusively on television/cable news hosts and political commentators for actual knowledge of the world today is making a serious mistake. Unfortunately, as Americans have devolved into non-readers with woefully short attention spans, newspapers providing even semi-analytical content have found themselves struggling to stay afloat while television, which delivers little more than news sound bites sandwiched between superficial chitchat and entertainment buzz, has become the prime source of so-called "news."
In this way, real news of national significance is either under-reported or unreported altogether while contrived media spectacles such as the Casey Anthony trial or the wedding of Prince William and Kate Middleton are allowed to dominate the news headlines for days and weeks on end. As media theorist Neil Postman, author of Amusing Ourselves to Death: Public Discourse in the Age of Show Business, rightly observed, "The news of the day is a figment of our technological imagination. It is, quite precisely, a media event... Without a medium to create its form, the news of the day does not exist."
In our media-dominated age, news personalities such as Bill O'Reilly, Chris Matthews, Sean Hannity, and Rachel Maddow, among others, dispense the news with power and certainty like preachers used to dispense religion and boast vast viewerships that hang on their every word. Yet these talking heads are little more than Wizard of Oz-like front men for the powers-that-be, the mega corporations whose sphere of influence extends from the newsroom to the nexus of political power, Washington, DC.
Clearly, there can be little hope for objective reporting in an environment where propaganda and advertisements are delivered in the guise of entertainment and news. Indeed, given the preponderance of news-as-entertainment programming that is trafficked on every channel, whether it be cable or broadcast news, it is little wonder that viewers are largely losing the ability to differentiate between news commentary and news reporting. And as long as the television sets remain aglow (in an average household, the television set is on over seven hours a day), the blabbering of talking heads and overbearing advertising will continue.
Short of tuning out altogether, there is no way to completely ignore the mass media, but the following truths may help to refocus one's media lens in order to better view the news through the eyes of an informed citizen.
1. TV news is not what happened. Rather, it is what someone thinks is worth reporting. The old art of investigative reporting has largely been lost. In fact, investigative reporting on television news is practically impossible, as the medium requires fast-paced transitions that flicker across the screen before being replaced by a completely unrelated discussion. Nuance is the enemy of television news. Any hard-hitting investigative report is drowned out by flavor of the week sound bites. While viewers are often inclined to take what is reported by television "news" hosts at face value, it is your responsibility to judge and analyze what is reported and uncover that which goes unreported.
For example, while the internet was rife with the news that American soldiers had formed themselves into so-called "kill teams" in order to kill innocent civilians in Afghanistan, it rated barely a mention on TV news. Similarly, little is said by the mainstream news about America's use of unmanned drone aircrafts in Pakistan, Somalia, and Yemen--countries with which America is not officially at war--despite the fact that the drone strikes have resulted in the deaths of dozens of civilians. Meanwhile, although at least 1,400 Americans have been arrested since 2009 for protesting in anti-war activities, the mainstream media has been strangely silent.
Yet the media's portrayal of Vietnam and anti-war activists was one reason Americans turned away from that war. The media also continues to overlook outrageous abuses of power within our own country. There are an estimated 40,000 SWAT team raids of American homes each year, many of which go awry, resulting in the senseless loss of life and destruction of private property, and yet we don't hear a peep from the corporate media about this havoc being wrought in our cities and towns.
2. TV news is entertainment. It is important to distinguish between TV news that portrays itself as news but is actually entertainment, such as many of the morning news shows, as opposed to programming that may be informative but casts itself primarily as entertainment, such as The Daily Show with Jon Stewart and The Colbert Report. (Ironically, people who watch the latter type of shows tend to be more informed on the issues than those who watch the major media networks such as CNN and Fox News Channel.) There is also a good reason why the programs you watch are called news "shows"--it's a signal that the so-called news is being delivered as a form of entertainment. Often, stories of some significance are sandwiched between banal pieces about celebrities and fictitious news events. "In the case of most news shows," write Neil Postman and Steve Powers in their insightful book, How to Watch TV News (1992), "the package includes attractive anchors, an exciting musical theme, comic relief, stories placed to hold the audience, the creation of the illusion of intimacy, and so on." For example, CNN Money actually ran a segment on what the cost of sending a student to Hogwarts, a fictional school in a book about wizards, would be. Most recently, one of CNN's Headline News female anchors seamlessly transitioned from a sober discussion about the debt ceiling fiasco to Helen Mirren being named the female celebrity body of the year, only to end with what appeared to be a chirpy plug for Apple's iPad.
Particularly disconcerting is the unabashed sexism showcased on most of what passes for television news today. More often than not, the news media employs female anchors that are over-sexualized and dumbed down for mass consumption, condemned to either play sidekick to the seemingly more "knowledgeable" men or discuss completely trivial issues with even less analytical skill than their vacuous male counterparts. Curiously, according to a study from researchers at Indiana University, men are more likely to closely watch sexy anchors but less likely to remember what they said.
3. Never underestimate the power of commercials, especially to news audiences. Television news media exists because of corporate sponsorship, a.k.a. advertising, the power of which should not be underestimated. The glitz and glamour of the present-day news show is intended to keep you glued to the set so that a product can be sold to you. (Even the TV news hosts get in on the action by peddling their own products, everything from their latest books to mugs and bathrobes.) Although the news items spoon-fed to you may have some value, they are primarily a commodity to gather an audience, which will in turn be sold to advertisers. Most people, believing themselves to be in control of their media consumption, are not really bothered by this. But TV is a two-way attack: it not only delivers programming to your home, it also delivers you (the consumer) to a sponsor.
The vast array of shiny objects, whirring gizmos, scantily clad women, and mind-altering prescription drugs being peddled on television may not compel everyone to run out and spend money, but no one is immune from the constant barrage of advertising. Corporations would not spend exorbitant sums of money on advertising (expenditures by American companies in 2001 were over $230 billion) were it not effective. Indeed, studies have shown that people do not even have to pay attention to the content of an advertisement to be affected by it. Food advertising, in particular, has taken quite a toll on the nation's waistline. A study undertaken by researchers at Yale University determined that food advertising affects how much children consume while watching television (the average child in an American household views upwards of 40,000 television commercials every year). The study found that children placed in a room with a bowl of goldfish crackers while watching a five-minute cartoon with food ads ate 45% more snacks than did their counterparts who did not see food ads. In a similar study, researchers found that adults exposed to ads for both unhealthy and healthy foods were willing to eat a wider range of food in larger portions as compared to their peers who saw only healthy food or no food ads.
4. It is vitally important to learn about the economic and political interests of those who own the "corporate" media. There are few independent news sources anymore. The major news outlets are owned by corporate empires. For example, General Electric owns the entire stable of NBC shows, including MSNBC, which it co-owns with Microsoft. CBS is owned by Westinghouse, while Disney owns ABC. CNN is owned by the multi-corporation Time-Warner, while Fox News Channel is owned by media mogul Rupert Murdoch.
Whether it comes down to acquiring government contracts or avoiding government regulation, corporations have a vested interest in politics. To this end, the two major parties in this country are heavily bankrolled by corporate dollars. For example, Time-Warner contributed about half a million dollars to Barack Obama's presidential campaign in 2008. General Electric (GE) handed Obama about half a million dollars as well. This is not a partisan issue, either. GE gave McCain about $100,000 in 2008 and Kerry and Bush about $100,000 each in 2004. In the 2010 election cycle, GE offered $1,378,310 to Democratic candidates and $899,460 to Republican candidates.
This begs the question: how can a corporate news network present objective news on any issue if it is financially supporting a political candidate or promoting a message to a specific audience? The answer is simple: it can't. "One doesn't have to be a Marxist," note Postman and Powers, "to assume that people making a million dollars a year will see things differently from people struggling to make ends meet." Remember, the aim of the news media is not to inform viewers but rather to sell them a product. Unfortunately, in the quest to turn a profit, truth suffers. This is why it is so vitally important to get various views on news stories and from sources that present a different view than what is seen on the corporate news networks.
5. Pay special attention to the language of newscasts and what is not being reported. More often than not, pundits and reporters tend to focus more on political games of one-upmanship rather than the real issues affecting the nation. For example, recent news reports have revolved around how the Republicans played hardball with the Democrats over the debt ceiling debate, and how the President used his "bully pulpit" to put pressure on Republicans to compromise. Not being discussed are the multitude of wars America is embroiled in, the continued dismantling of civil liberties in this country, and the widening gap in wealth between the top 1% of Americans and the working and middle classes. The wool is being pulled over our eyes as the country continues to plunge into darkness.
TV by its very nature manipulates viewers. One must never forget that every television minute has been edited. The viewer does not see the actual event but the edited form of the event. For example, presenting a one- to two-minute segment from a two-hour political speech and having a TV talk show host critique it may be disingenuous, but such edited footage is a regular staple on news shows. Consider the fact that the average sound bite during the 1968 presidential election was 43 seconds in length, whereas by 1988 the average sound bite hovered around a mere 9 seconds long. Add to that the fact that the reporters editing the footage have a subjective view--sometimes determined by their corporate bosses--that enters into their commentary, and you have a recipe for misinformation. Moreover, because film footage and other visual imagery are so engaging on TV news shows, viewers are apt to allow language--what the reporter is saying about the images--to go unexamined, despite the fact that the meaning we derive from the image is often determined by the host's commentary.
6. Greatly reduce the amount of TV news you watch. TV news generally consists of "bad" news--wars, torture, murders, scandals and so forth. It cannot possibly do you any harm to excuse yourself each week from much of the mayhem projected at you on the news. Do not form your concept of reality based on television. TV news, it must be remembered, does not reflect normal everyday life. Studies indicate that a heavy viewing of TV news makes people think the world is much more dangerous than it actually is. One "study indicates that watching television, including news shows, makes people somewhat more depressed than they otherwise would be," say Postman and Powers. This may lead to chronic depression and constantly being alarmed. These feelings of depression and alarm ignited during the newscast are juxtaposed with advertisements offering stress relieving and distracting products, such as prescription medications, alcohol, food, and consumer products.
7. One of the reasons many people are addicted to watching TV news is that they feel they must have an opinion on almost everything, which gives the illusion of participation in American life. But an "opinion" is all that we can gain from TV news because it only presents the most rudimentary and fragmented information on anything. Thus, we don't really know much about what is actually going on, and, of course, we are expected to take what the TV news host says on an issue as gospel truth. Yet while it is certainly better to think for yourself, we often don't have enough information from the "news" source to form a true opinion. How can that be accomplished?
First of all, books are a great source of information that are often overlooked. Books allow for levels of breadth and depth of discussion of an issue that television cannot possibly provide. Major newspapers are still a decent source of information despite their falling profits and their selective discussion of certain issues. Local papers are most important because all political involvement begins at the local level. Understanding the issues facing your town and responding to them via letters to the editor is an effective way to start participating in society. It's certainly more effective than sitting on your couch and watching TV.
Finally, there is the internet, which as The Economist recently acknowledged in its special report on the news industry, "has made the news a far more participatory and social experience." The article continues:Non-journalists are acting as sources for a growing number of news organisations, either by volunteering information directly or by posting comments, pictures or video that can be picked up and republished. Journalists initially saw this as a threat but are coming to appreciate its benefits, though not without much heart-searching. Some organisations have enlisted volunteers to gather or sift data, creating new kinds of "crowdsourced" journalism. Readers can also share stories with their friends, and the most popular stories cause a flood of traffic as recommendations ripple across social networks. Referrals from social networks are now the fastest-growing source of traffic for many news websites. Readers are being woven into the increasingly complex news ecosystem as sources, participants and distributors. "They don't just consume news, they share it, develop it, add to it--it's a very dynamic relationship with news," says Arianna Huffington, co-founder of the Huffington Post, a news website in the vanguard of integrating news with social media.
Click here for a shorter version of this commentary.
As well as making Twitter, Facebook and Google part of the news ecosystem, the internet has also made possible entirely new kinds of specialist news organisations. It has allowed WikiLeaks, for example, to accept documents anonymously and publish them to a global audience, while floating in cyberspace above national jurisdictions, operated by a small, nomadic team. Other newcomers include a host of not-for-profit news organisations that rely on philanthropic funding and specialise in particular kinds of journalism. Many of these new outfits collaborate with traditional news organisations, taking advantage of their broad reach and trusted, established brands.
All these new inhabitants of the news ecosystem have brought an unprecedented breadth and diversity of news and opinion to the business... [A]s news becomes more social, participatory, diverse and partisan, it is in many ways returning to the more chaotic, freewheeling and politically charged environment of the era before the emergence of mass media in the 19th century. And although the internet has proved hugely disruptive to journalists, for consumers--who now have a wider choice than ever of news sources and ways of accessing them--it has proved an almost unqualified blessing.
Post Comment Private Reply Ignore Thread
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest
#1. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
Western media lie about Syria – eyewitness reports A photo released by the Syrian Arab news Agency (SANA) on April 27, 2011, shows one of 6 coffins of a killed member of either the army or security forces being taken from the October Military hospital in Damascus to their towns and villages for burial, following several days of unrest (AFP Photo) While media reports paint a picture of the situation in Syria as a mass public uprising brutally suppressed by the dictatorial government, the events are viewed in a totally different way by those living there. RT caught up with Anhar Kochneva, director of a Moscow-based tourist firm specializing in the Middle East. She often travels to Syria, and stays in touch with hundreds of people in the region. She shared what her contacts say about the unfolding unrest and who they blame for the spreading violence. RT: What’s happening in Syria? What have you seen? And that are the Syrians saying? Anhar Kochneva: Not even once did I come across anyone who would in any way support these riots; and mind you, in the line of my job, I deal with all sorts of people. There are many vehicles with the president’s portraits driving the streets throughout the country – ranging from old, barely moving crankers to brand new Porsches and Hummers. You can't force people into hanging up portraits. It means that people, irrespective of their status and income, support the president rather than the rebellion. I saw quite a number of young people walking or driving around with Syrian flags. How can you force a young person hanging out with friends to wave flags? I think it's difficult too. If you understand the mentality of the Syrians you can tell there is a sincere impulse from a forced obligation. On March 29, I saw a rally in Hama to support the president – indeed, many thousands of men and women, with their children, and entire families went out. The streets were flooded with people. It was quite a shock to see Al-Jazeera presenting rallies in support of the president as if they were protests against him. It was just as surprising to see the Israeli websites post photos and videos of supporters' rallies with comments saying those were opponents of the regime. There you have people holding portraits of Bashar al-Assad and flags, and we’re told that these people are against him. RT: The media reports mass anti-government rallies. AK: There’s a powerful misinformation swell going on. On April 1, the media reported a large anti-governmental rally in Damascus. I was in Damascus on that day. This rally never happened – I didn’t see it, and neither did the locals. On April 16, Reuters news agency wrote that 50,000 opponents of the regime took to the streets of Damascus, and that they had been dispersed with tear gas and batons. Damascus’ residents realize that such a rally could not take place in the city unnoticed. How many policemen would it take to disperse it? And how come nobody saw it except Reuters? Five hundred people in the streets of Damascus are a large crowd. Reuters broadcast their material around the world, including Russia. One source lies, and then this lie is like a snowball rolling downhill creating a fake reality, and picking up rumor and speculation. People in Syria watch the footage. What do they see? A picture allegedly from Yemen. A picture allegedly from Egypt. A picture allegedly from Syria. But the pictures all show people dressed in the same fashion. People in Syria can tell their fellow countrymen from their neighbors – both by their faces and their clothes. There are videos on the internet showing how amateur footage of the so-called riots is made. There's a parked car and nothing’s going on around. And there's a man standing next to it throwing rocks. And people around are taking pictures. There are a lot of staged videos. A Lebanese can tell the difference between footage taken in Lebanon and that taken in Damascus at a glance. And they show footage from Tripoli, or footage taken several years ago in Iraq, and say it is unrest in Syria. There are many online forums for women in Arab countries. Women share information following TV reports on ‘mass unrests’. Women write – what’s happening outside your window? And they reply: we looked down from the balcony, and didn’t see anything that the TV was talking about. Presently, a lot of young unarmed policemen get killed. The media propaganda immediately labels them as victims of the regime. I repeat, policemen are unarmed. The Syrian police are not too good with guns, because nothing like this has happened here for a long time. But the killed rookies are reported as either victims among the protestors, or as policemen who refused to shoot at their fellow countrymen, depending on the editors’ preference. Goebbels’ words seem to be true: the bigger the lie, the more easily they believe it. RT: But why are policemen dying if there are no mass protests? AK: Policemen die because they get shot by those who know that they are unarmed. RT: Who shoots policemen? AK: They talk a lot about it in Syria. Rumor has it that trained commandos came across the border from Iraq. People in Syria are well-aware that after the US occupied Iraq, they formed special squads there. They were killing people, stirring up conflicts between the Shiite and Sunni communities, and between Muslims and Christians; they were blowing up streets, markets, mosques and churches. Those terrorist attacks targeted civilians rather than the occupying regime. Not long ago, they caught three such commandos in the outskirts of Damascus, when they were randomly shooting at people. They turned out to be Iraqis. Syrian TV showed footage of somebody shooting at policemen and passers-by from bushes and rooftops. They occasionally get caught, and they either turn out to be Iraqis, or they admit that they were paid for it. Such militants were detained in Deraa and Latakia. They had US-made weapons. The Lebanese security service intercepted several cars carrying weapons as they were coming into Lebanon. One such car was stopped coming from Iraq. There were American weapons in those cars too. Also there are reports about detained people who had large sums of money with them – with US dollars. These people carried expensive satellite phones that cannot be tapped by the Syrian security service. In Syria, it is no longer a secret to anyone that the Americans have an unhindered opportunity to recruit and train the commandos in Iraq, and then send them wherever they want. Hilary Clinton has already stated that if Syria cuts its relations with Iran and withdraws its support for Hamas and Hezbollah, the demonstrations would stop the next day. They don't even bother to keep secret the hand instilling riots in Syria. There’s plenty of evidence of foreign interference. Finally, people say protestors are brought in from afar for the rallies. Those people speak and look differently from the locals. Nobody in the neighborhood knows them. Who rents the buses and finances the delivery of these people? The question stands. The former Syrian Vice-President Abdel Halim Khaddam had initiated the riots in the coastal regions. He had plundered half of the country. He was involved in corruption schemes and finally fled to the West. It was he who tried to accuse Syrian President Bashar al-Assad of assassinating the former Lebanese Prime Minister Rafic Hariri. The Syrians firmly believe that Sayed Hariri had personally given a villa to Abdel Halim Khaddam for spreading this version of Rafic Hariri’s murder. But when that version fell apart and was not confirmed, the villa was taken away. Today, those who shot at cars in Banias are shouting: “We don’t want Bashar. We want Abdel Halim!” There are peaceful and cultured opposition members in Banias who have been against al-Assad’s regime for many years. But they are shocked by what’s going on and do not support Khaddam at all. They say: “He’s a thief. He who stole most calls to fight corruption and thievery.” RT: What role are Syrian emigrants playing in the Syrian destabilization? AK: It’s an open question. There was a leak claiming that Dan Feldman, Hillary Clinton’s special representative for the Middle East, met representatives of the Syrian opposition in Istanbul in mid-April and suggested the tactics for assassinations of civil and military officials. In less than three days, on April 19, several military officials had been brutally killed in Syria. Not only were they attacked and shot dead, some victims of the attacks, including three teenage children of a Syrian general, who were in a car with him, were cut to pieces with sabres. Murders committed with a high degree of brutality are aimed at intimidating the population. The news that children had been cut to pieces served that purpose quite well. RT: Media reports used to say that the riots started after the arrest in the city of Deraa, in southern Syria, of several children writing anti-government slogans? Is it really so? AK: All the children had been released very quickly. Moreover, the government-owned Syrian newspapers published the release orders. RT: Have the troops been brought into Deraa? AK: Yes, troops are there. After an Islamic emirate had been proclaimed in Deraa, the local residents asked the government for help. Troops have been brought in. I’ve just seen the videos. The demonstrators published them on the internet and shortly after erased them. But people made copies. There are soldiers, and people come to them and talk peacefully. Nobody shoots anyone. RT: Is there a sentiment in Syria that if it gets rid of Hamas support and the Palestinians and strike a peace deal with Israel, all the riots will end immediately? AK: No, there’s no such sentiment. There’s consolidation of society. The people are sticking together because they see that the enemy is extremely dangerous. For instance, previously I never heard anything except pop music and the recital of the Koran on the radio when I rode in a taxi. Now, patriotic music is coming from all cars. When Bashar al-Assad was speaking on television, the people who were listening to him at the market applauded him. You cannot force people to applaud a president who speaks on television. RT: What has the public mood been in recent days? AK: People are afraid of going out. In some regions, people risked their lives to record with a secret camera how unidentified persons sneaked into a car, moved off and started shooting in all directions. This is how they are sowing panic in residential areas. Bandits blocked a bridge on the road near the coast. Soon, the military pushed them back. One of my Syrian contacts told me: “you don’t need many people to plunge the country into trouble.” Putting five people on a major road would be enough to paralyze the whole area. People are unable to deliver foodstuffs or reach hospitals. And the whole country is in shock because of a handful of bandits. Now, Syrian television is making live broadcasts from various parts of Damascus and other cities for people to see how the situation is unfolding and how life is getting back to normal, whatever the Western media show. It’s noteworthy that bandits intentionally tried to rouse hatred among various communities. Recently, a sheikh was insulting the Druze, particularly women, in an address to the residents of the south. This video is being broadcast by the foreign media and is advertized on the internet. Nothing like that ever happened in Syria before. Provocations failed in Damascus though attempts were made to set religious communities against each other. Provocateurs lack support in rural areas too – the sowing campaign has started there. The most massive demonstrations in Dera gathered 500 people. But they say 450 people have been killed. RT: Has the government launched any reforms? AK: The government has lifted martial law and has allowed the staging of authorized rallies if permission for them is obtained five days ahead. Foreigners have been allowed to buy real estate. The Kurds have been granted citizenship. The Kurdish population didn’t have it before for a number of historical reasons. The government is opening business courses for women in northern Syria. Many provincial governors have been dismissed. Unfortunately, in some cases they were honest people. Like those who refused to free criminals from prison for bribes and had been targeted by smear campaigns in public for it. RT: Have the number of flights to Syria been cut? AK: There are no tickets for Syria. We wanted to dispatch a group of tourists to Syria but there were no air tickets to Damascus for April 30. But Russians are not fleeing from Syria. I have full information about it for my job.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Ben Franklin "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
Television: It rots the senses in the head, (From Charlie and the Chocolate Factory by Roald Dahl, The Tim Burton, Johnny Depp movie version)
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Ben Franklin "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
About as well as can be expected in this economy.
deleted
The relationship between morality and liberty is a directly proportional one. "Only a virtuous people are capable of freedom. As nations become corrupt and vicious, they have more need of masters." ~ Ben Franklin "For my part, whatever anguish of spirit it may cost, I am willing to know the whole truth, to know the worst, and to provide for it.” ~ Patrick Henry
#2. To: bush_is_a_moonie (#1)
#3. To: Eric Stratton (#0)
(Edited)
It kills Imagination dead,
It clogs and clutters up the mind,
It makes a child so dull and blind,
He can no longer understand,
A fantasy, a fairyland,
His brain becomes as soft as cheese,
His thinking powers rust and freeze,
He can not think, he only SEES!!!... 
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#4. To: Coral Snake (#3)
#5. To: Eric Stratton (#4)
The Fed EXPOSED!!! The FARO RESERVE BANK!!!
#6. To: Coral Snake (#5)
Top • Page Up • Full Thread • Page Down • Bottom/Latest