Before you criticize the media

And this one, is one blogger's retort.

Wow.. and I thought i was the only one who noticed things like that.

I also dont understand how people can say that they are truly un-informed about something while using a piece of technology that can show you almost ANYTHING in the world.

Dont know about the war?
Use google.
Dont know how many soldiers died?
Use google.
Wanna know how many people in Iraq die by american hands ..... ?
Google.

Wanna know who the father is ?
Watch Maury Povich
Wanna lose weight?
Read Redbook

want real news?
GOOGLE...................

Though I do think it is sad that a child of another child ( brittneys sister) makes the headlines before the technical points of the war.. but..
If it pays the bills eh? (shrug)

the "blogger's retort" isn't quite fair. after all, it appears that whoever circulated that CNN page didn't click on the links to read about Britney's sister, either.

But he also didn't read the pages that he circled and went for the fluffy news stories. In any case it may or may not be fair on the individual level but the point remains, the "media" gives people what they want and lots of people want the fluffy news.

that's free enterprise for ya. but i think this example raises eyebrows because CNN has (or had?) the image of a respectable news outlet, a few notches above the tabloid media. i think they do have an entertainment division, but they probably have more correspondents covering the sort of stories that are circled off to the side in the graphic we're discussing.

What? Britney has a sister? Where the hell did she come from?

Isn't it also self-reinforcing, though? Assuming that they determine which links to feature prominently based on how many people read them, doesn't featuring an article prominently also influence how many people read them?

The amazing thing is that those two news stories are even on the list.

We must emphasize to teenage girls that, even though it will make them fat and crazy, they must use birth control.

None of the links work for me.

You must click exactly 7,849 times for it to work. Better get started.

From my experience, I don't think CNN's "Lead List" works by popularity. It seems to be the "Latest news".

If you go to their homepage it'll look pretty much like the pics above. Then if you scroll down you'll see news groups broken down into various areas. (i.e. International News, U.S News, Medical News, Entertainment news, etc...). There are 10 or so categories.

The news stories in the individual categories are listed in order of the time the story was last updated. The Lead List at the top of the page is set to pull from the top 1 or 2 stories from each category. That's why there are always some "Entertainment News" stories in the top list. (And if an entertainer fall ill or runs into legal problems their story may run in the medical or legal sections so the top list gets flooded with entertainmnet drivel).

According to my view, American media and journalism is facing the slow death.
Not because American populace ignorant but because of the corporate controlled face journalism.
Ask any non-american

Tell me one popular daily which had exposed the present regime's barbarism.
Tell me one American Channel who bring analytical, crtical, objective programme.
Tell me how much a Tv moderator should earn for his noble investigative journalism?
What kind of journalism you all would like to approve and uphold..
I see CNN, BBC I read WP, NYT, IHT beside other sources.
Get informed and be alert.
Don#t be carried away with stenographer's version of the world.
Rama

Sorry.
it is my duty to expose nasty journalism
here is one.

Democratic Congressman Dennis Kucinich introduced 35 articles of impeachment against George W. Bush for high crimes ranging from creating a false propaganda campaign to lead the country into an illegal war to felony treason in leaking classified information of CIA operative Valerie Plame to obstructing justice of the investigation of the attacks of September 11th. You can read the articles of impeachment HERE.

The allegations are EXTREMELY serious. If even HALF of them are true (and it's obvious that they are) the president should not only be impeached but should be put in JAIL. George Bush has the lowest approval rating of any sitting president and most of the country believes that he either intentionally lied us into Iraq or did not tell us the whole story. One might think that this is a proposal that would gain massive support. One might think that this would be on the front page of every newspaper and website as well as the lead story on all the major networks. THE STORY IS NOT BEING COVERED even though tonight the articles for impeachment received a co-sponsor. Rep. Robert Wexler of Florida has cosigned the article with Dennis Kucinich.

What is the function of the media if not to inform the people about important decisions facing our country? How are we to take part in a participatory democracy if the media is unwilling to give us all of the information needed to make decisions?

http://www.aleeka.com/profiles/blog/show?id=2067456%3ABlogPost%3A2702
Oh yes you won't believe this invective, investigative non-embedded journalism.
I cann understand your partial patriotism
How about this

Judith Miller is a reporter for the New York Times. After the invasion, on assignment to cover a U.S. military unit as it searches for WMD in Iraq, she's given "clearance" by the Pentagon "to see secret information" " which she "was not permitted to discuss" with Times editors.

There's nothing wrong with this picture if Judith Miller is an intelligence operative for the U.S. government. But if she's supposed to be a journalist, this is a preposterous situation " and the fact that the New York Times has tolerated it tells us a lot about that newspaper.

Notably, the front-page story about Miller in the Times on Sunday bypassed Miller's "clearance" status and merely reported: "In the spring of 2003, Ms. Miller returned from covering the war in Iraq, where she had been embedded with an American military team searching unsuccessfully for evidence of nuclear, chemical and biological weapons."
The apex of the Times hierarchy has provided no indication of personal remorse or institutional accountability. And the next time agenda-setting for U.S. military action " against Iran or Syria or wherever " shifts into high gear, it's very unlikely that the New York Times or other top-tier U.S. media outlets will present major roadblocks.

On June 14, 2003, shortly before he was promoted to the job of executive editor at the New York Times, the newspaper published an essay by Bill Keller that explained why the U.S. government should strive to improve the quality of its intelligence. "The truth is that the information-gathering machine designed to guide our leaders in matters of war and peace shows signs of being corrupted," he wrote. "To my mind, this is a worrisome problem, but not because it invalidates the war we won. It is a problem because it weakens us for the wars we still face."
http://www.antiwar.com/solomon/?articleid=7669

Do you want more to expose the stenographer journalists and highly paid media moguls?

A simple question.
Pakisthan dictator had resigned under the thread of Impeachment. Both WP and NYT had written a lengthy report about it without the main word Impeachment.
When will WP or NYT try to rake up the crimes of american president?

Rama,

Instead of filling the first page of my thread with your drivel, can you keep it to one post at a time? Please? You can have your say and all, but this is just verbal diarrhea when you fill up the page with your posts.

Excuse me sir.
Just above i have inadvertantly opened a topic before I peruse your thread for which i regret.
But still you can confront with your retort with valid sources.
If I had not answered no new members will peruse this thread.
Any
way i will stop respectfully my verbal venom
Regards

Just remember that they want to downgrade the things that matter by providing constant emphasis on celebrity bullshit and making world news and things not centered around entertainment seem trivial (IRONY!!??!?!). By doing this they can do pretty much whatever they want without a public outcry. And, if there is a public outcry, chances are they won't publicize it. Why do you think all the stories on MSN, AOL, or YAHOO are pretty much all the same? The media is being monopolized while we stand idly by and twiddle our thumbs, complacent with the roles we've been assigned due to 'responsibility'... welcome to the brave new world everybody.