What the hell is wrong with the media?

[rraley]

This isn't about the bias of the media, but rather about what I have especially noticed this week...the media covers absolute crap rather than the things that are truly affecting our lives. Sure, the story of a missing boy scout and an Alabama teen missing in Aruba are heart wrenching. There is human interest value there, but I mean, COME ON!! There are stories like this everywhere, they don't need to be on the national news. We don't need to be told every single detail about the Michael Jackson molestation trial. I watched CNN and their reporter mentioned what each juror was wearing for that day's arguments.

Meanwhile there is a Social Security reform proposal out there that influences every American's retirement. There is this war going on in Iraq. There are millions in poverty and without health care and other basic needs. There's pollution, increasing gas prices...and all that the media reports on these items (for two minutes) is which side is winning the battle to get their message out. It seems like they could be analyzing how accurate each side's position is and how credible their claims are. I mean, come on...

Sorry for the rant, I needed to get it off my chest.

 

[vraiblonde]

I mean, come on...

Well, think about it - which gets higher ratings: the news or Desperate Housewives? The media wants ratings and they're not going to get it by talking about Social Security, UN Ambassador nominations and Iraq. Your average American viewer doesn't understand that stuff (or care about it) and it makes them feel like they're watching the Spanish soap operas on MHz.

Politicians and pundits go on and on about "issues that are important to the American people", but we all know that what's really important to the American people is Tom and Katie's engagement.

 

[Tinkerbell]

...Your average American viewer doesn't understand that stuff ...

I made a comment similiar to that here at work, and Lord, this one lady here almost took my head off. I think she thought I called her stupid!

 

[rraley]

The media wants ratings and they're not going to get it by talking about Social Security, UN Ambassador nominations and Iraq. Your average American viewer doesn't understand that stuff (or care about it) and it makes them feel like they're watching the Spanish soap operas on MHz.

I understand what you are saying vrai, but maybe the average American viewer doesn't understand the issues facing America because the media has treated them like dummies. It's the "bigotry of low expectations" and it is something we should never accept.

 

[vraiblonde]

I understand what you are saying vrai, but maybe the average American viewer doesn't understand the issues facing America because the media has treated them like dummies.

It's the exact other way around, you're just too young to remember it. (That's not a slam - you ARE too young to remember it)

When I was a kid and a young adult, the news was the news - national and world events, politics, dry, not particularly exciting. Some celebrity actually had to kill someone in order to make the evening news. You had to buy an entertainment magazine to learn that some movie star got married.

Even when CNN first came on the scene (and, yes, I remember when CNN first came on the scene but you weren't born yet), it was legitimate news and boring as hell.

Then nighttime "news" magazines came along and blew the regular news out of the water, ratings-wise. Those were more sensationalized stories and filled with celebrity bios and stuff like that. Seeing the ratings success of such idiotic fare, the big news followed suit.

And here we are today.

It's all about the ratings - what sells and what people will tune in for. Note the ratings of Fox and CNN vs. C-SPAN? That's all the proof needed right there that people want McDonald's, not broccoli and steamed fish.

 

[ylexot]

Definitely agree with you rraley. I stopped watching the news early in the MJ trial stuff becuase that was at least 50% of the news and I cared 0% about it. I also noticed during the elections that there was coverage of the elections, but very little investigative reporting. It was mainly regurgitation of the sound bites with some opinions thrown in. I was hoping they would analyze the sound bites and ads and show the truth/falsifications in them a la factcheck.org...no dice. I think the TV news is actually losing ground some to the internet because some places on the internet are doing more investigative research than the news channels.

 

[vraiblonde]

Raley, you must have noticed by now that you are unusual among your peers, right?

In the history of Somd.com forums, we've had two, count 'em, two other teens who would come on and talk politics with us. One was a raving liberal that makes you look like Rush Limbaugh, and the other was a Republican goth chick KKK member. Idiots, both.

I have a daughter who is engaged, like you are, and she is endlessly frustrated that her classmates aren't interested in the same things she is. When they start screaming "Bush lied, thousands died!", she wants to have a conversation about it - "Why do you feel that way?" And it pisses her off to no end that they have no idea why they feel that way - they just heard someone on TV say it and thought it sounded cool.

Now I KNOW that you certainly have the same experiences. So it can't surprise you to realize that most people are half-retarded about what's going on around them and have zero interest in learning.

 

[Tonio]

Then nighttime "news" magazines came along and blew the regular news out of the water, ratings-wise. Those were more sensationalized stories and filled with celebrity bios and stuff like that. Seeing the ratings success of such idiotic fare, the big news followed suit.

And here we are today.

It's all about the ratings - what sells and what people will tune in for. Note the ratings of Fox and CNN vs. C-SPAN? That's all the proof needed right there that people want McDonald's, not broccoli and steamed fish.

I agree. I think another factor is the growth in the number of cable and satellite channels. Even when I was a teenager, cable TV was 12 channels. Now on satellite I can get something like 300. The network news shows are now little fish in a big pond. With so many choices, the fight for ratings is much more intense.

I'm not sure exactly when the news shows realized that tabloid stories made for good ratings. I started to notice it when the Kerrigan/Harding story broke. The 1990s seemed like one lurid, sordid personal drama after another--Buttafuoco/Fisher, the Menendez brothers, O.J., even Clinton/Lewinsky. I think the missing-young-woman stories fit into the pattern, especially when they have lurid details like the Runaway Bride and Levy/Condit. We're turning into a nation of mean-spirited gossips who think we have the right to know what goes on in other people's lives.

 

[K_Jo]

I watch CNN every morning for at least an hour and I feel like I get a great mix of news. I like hearing about everything - celebrities, Iraq, missing kids, natural disasters, guys who've killed their wives, unnecessary building evacuations - I like it all. If it was all serious all the time, I'd be watching Saved by the Bell while I get ready for work.

 

[rraley]

vrai, I understand that there are some people out who do not completely think about issues...but for those who say "Bush lied, thousands died" and have no clue what it was about....maybe they would if the media showed the protestors chanting that and then having a piece about the substance (or lack of) behind it.

 

[czygvtwkr]

Freedom of the Press is a bit of a misnomer, it makes people think that the press being free will give the people all information that they need but what it really does is allows the media to give you the information that they think will make them the most money and in the case of some give you the information that they want you to have.

 

[vraiblonde]

If it was all serious all the time, I'd be watching Saved by the Bell while I get ready for work.

THANK you! People want to be entertained. (Which is not a knock on K_Jo - people want what they want)

maybe they would if the media showed the protestors chanting that and then having a piece about the substance (or lack of) behind it.

I doubt it. There are plenty of good news stories out there - I've seen the protesters dissected and interviewed any number of times, on any number of news channels. But people aren't interested.

K_Jo (who I am NOT picking on) said in another thread (when someone asked how many characters you could put in one post), "25, if you want me to read it." And that's about right. You have to be really, really, really, really interested in a subject to read more than a brief blurb about it. Headlines grab, but if the story's too long, you'll lose your audience. People will listen endlessly to stories about runaway brides, because they can relate to that and it's entertaining. But they'll only listen to Social Security for about 30 seconds before their eyes glaze over and they change the channel.

99% of forumites who clicked this thread stopped reading this post after the second paragraph. I'd bet money on it. Why do you think people always complain on here about run-on paragraphs? They want it short, sweet, and easy to comprehend, or else they're gone.

 

[K_Jo]

I feel picked on and knocked.

That time I only read the parts where I saw my name. :surprise:

 

[Larry Gude]

Dub R...

...is it possible that you are railing against a system...that works?

For example, is it really rational for the average person to be all caught up in what is going to happen to Social Security? Might we be taking this a bit more seriously than is good for us?

For example, SS to you, at your age, matters about as much as what your diet is like. Right now, it doesn't matter what you eat nor what happens to SS; you'll only pay for it later. Much later.

Conversely, folks who are getting monthly checks care very much along with those who are getting close to retirement. It's kinda like 37 year olds suddenly becoming concerned with how they'll look for their 20 year High School reunion. Some people take that very seriously. Imagine how frightening that would be if we all did.

Now, there is certainly nothing wrong with being an engaged, concerned citizen. We can always benefit from more of them. BUT, let's say that EVERYONE, 18 and older, suddenly became VERY concerned about the shape of social security, to give it, in essence, the weight and concern you may think it deserves. Write their congressmen. Go to concerned citizens meetings. Run for office.

Imagine what a pain in the ass it would become, compared to now, to get ANYTHING done. What if 1,000 people ran for county commissioner? What if 1,000 excellent ideas for the future of SS made their way to the office of each of our 535 representatives in DC? What if thousands of people, in support of those ideas, were determined to meet, in person, as is their right, with their congress person to expound on just how important this was to them and how great the idea that sprang from their district was?

It's kinda like public school, the meida is. It's something for people to do while the people who REALLY care go about trying to get things done.

A land of 200,000,000 Bill Gates' has plenty of leadership skills but no customers, no employees, no followers.

A world of 6,000,000,000 Ghandis is quiet and tranquil but has nothing worth fighting for.

A land with no Michael Jacksons or lost kids or killer bees or mad cow diseases would make it impossible for people like you and I and the group of exceptional citizens on this board to even get a word in edgewise.

Besides, with so many busy people, with kids, work, family, sex, religion, money and bad hair days, a little diversion and entertainment may be good for the republic.

 

[AndyMarquisLIVE]

Media problems

I'll tell you what, I can get satisfied just watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Although I can never seem to count on CNN or FOX when there is a major story. They'll only cover developments if it's something that really is pointless. If I see "JUST IN" and "Aruba" ONE MORE TIME! She's dead people, get over it.

The first time I began question the media's judgement was during the Tsunami. It had happened on Saturday night the 25th here. MSNBC did not start covering it until the 29TH. I had seen CNN covering it on the 27th when I realized it was big. If there's a major event, MSNBC will ALWAYS ignore it. CNN will ignore it during primetime. I watch CNN weekend afternoons, FOX News Weekend primetime and MSNBC weekday daytime.

Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly can (BLEEP) and (BLEEP) (BLEEP)...

 

[Bustem' Down]

I'll tell you what, I can get satisfied just watching Countdown with Keith Olbermann. Although I can never seem to count on CNN or FOX when there is a major story. They'll only cover developments if it's something that really is pointless. If I see "JUST IN" and "Aruba" ONE MORE TIME! She's dead people, get over it.

The first time I began question the media's judgement was during the Tsunami. It had happened on Saturday night the 25th here. MSNBC did not start covering it until the 29TH. I had seen CNN covering it on the 27th when I realized it was big. If there's a major event, MSNBC will ALWAYS ignore it. CNN will ignore it during primetime. I watch CNN weekend afternoons, FOX News Weekend primetime and MSNBC weekday daytime.

Oh yeah, Bill O'Reilly can (BLEEP) and (BLEEP) (BLEEP)...

I watch all of them, Bill Keith what ever. Between what the liberals say and what the consevatives say, and by watching more than one news channel, you can get a feel for what's really going on besides party agenda.

And Katie Curic today showed her lack of anything relating to a news anchor (or whatever she billes herself today) with that damn interview with the runaway bride. Like I really give a damn.

 

[donbarzini]

"a little diversion and entertainment may be good for the republic."

Larry, that's what HBO et al, is for. Bring back Walter Cronkite/Huntley&Brinkley/Frank Reynolds. As far as the current crop of "anchors"(ahem!!) put them all in one room with only one comb and one mirror, and whoever walks out of the room, gets shot!

 

[Bruzilla]

I think that the media started going to Hell when they started spending more time trying to make the news rather than report it. Back in the early 1970's, an "Investigative Reporter" was an oddity, now every reporter wants that title attached to their name. As a result, they're all out trying to scoop the competitors not by developing a solid network of sources, but by reporting what anyone with the slightest pedigree says. For example:

The Sniper Case - The FBI said there wasn't enough info to profile the suspects, so the reporters track down a bunch of posers and retired cops with no access to all the evidence, and they make a SWAG, which is widely reported. Then when it turns out the SWAG was completely wrong, the media turns to the FBI and says "how could you have been so wrong?"

The Jessica Lynch Story - The DoD keeps telling the media that they're investigating what happened, but that's not what they want to hear. So they go and interview anyone associated with the DoD and get SWAGs from all sorts of "un-named sources". Then when it turns out all those SWAGs were wrong, the media turns on the DoD leadership and wants to know why they were misled!

Now you have the Holloway gal missing in Aruba, and the media is faced with a police/judicial system that actually belives in not commenting on an ongoing investigation, so the newsies go running about trying to do their own investigation. Their first scoop - that blood was found in the car of the prime suspect. Then when it turns out that the blood is actually rust, and the police tell the media that they're being irresponsible for rushing to report unconfirmed information, the response is not "we screwed up", it's "You cops should have got the analysis done faster. Why did it take you so long? Are you trying to hide something?" Next, the newsies write and say all kinds of nasty things about the security guards who were arrested, and issuing all kinds of speculation about how they killed her, when ooops... turns out they didn't do anything wrong. Do the media folks say "Sorry folks. In our rush to judgement we sort of really libled and slandered these guys?" No. The media instead does more stories on how the Aruba legal system and police made a mistake in arresting these guys too soon.

 

[FromTexas]

For Rraley...

 

[K_Jo]

For Rraley...

They say he hates Fruit Loops. So why aren't they feeding him nothing but Fruit Loops?