BRAVE NEW WORLD

Of course I have. But when you are trying to give people advice you may want to use spellcheck.

Cycloptichorn

Is this irony?

Lol, not anymore

Cycloptichorn

tommrr

I believe you're partly correct but I think you must add.....Good news is not sensational enough so most newspapers print "Bad" news. Just look at the headlines, Bomb explodes in Baghdad and kills 27 children, Man shot in London....innocent.(later it says man had expired Visa). Bad news, sells.

The obsession with the "Bottom line" is partly to blame.

I think you're also wrong when you say......Investigative Journalism is lacking.........You have no idea how many Bob Woodward, "wannabes are out their seeking fame and fortune. They are no better than paparazzi photographers in my opinion because they pretend to be journalists but have absolutely no regard for the Professional Journalist's code of ethics or have never heard of it.

The rayban1 bottom line.



~~~~~~


Best off not to respond to this person, Set. Some things are best stepped around, not on or in.

I don't agree that government has direct control, rather that it has disproportionate influence. I understand your reference to the bottom line appeal of sensationalism. When television began, the nation's radio markets were more or less saturated. Most stations were locally owned, and a fairly wide variety of tastes were served. However, NBC and CBS offered national programming for television, and local markets had no alternative programming to offer, as was the case with radio--so it became a corporate broadcasting policy to seek a common denominator in programming.

In the years that followed, and especially after the mid-1960s, radio diversified even more, able to appeal to target audiences (and therefore serve specific advertisers) more than television. I don't believe that America "dumbed-down" so much as that television sought more and more to appeal to the broadest audience, to a national audience--and therefore, it eschewed anything that smacked of intellectualism, elitism, sectionalism, racial or ethnic interest. In fact, the demographic pretty quickly settled down to an appeal to women aged 20 to 54, identified as those most likely to actually spend the household budget.

There is now, of course, an issue of the concentration of radio station ownership in a few hands. This leads to programmed broadcasting not unlike that which the networks produced for nation-wide television audiences, and a great deal of diversity of the offering gets abandoned. In television news, and increasingly in radio news and talk radio, the bottom line, the corporate policy, is focused on sensationalism because it is justifiably assumed that "scooping" the competition, or offering appealing versions of the latest big story, will reel in the audience for the duration of their viewing or listening time, boosting the ratings, and therefore the advertising value of the rest of the programming. As quickly became the rule with early television entertainment programming, this means that controversy is avoided, risks are not taken.

The print media continues to have an audience for a wide variety of stories. Television and radio could have such audiences as well, but that would narrow their appeal, and that is inimical to corporate bottom line policies. News on television and radio will only go with a controversial story which is believed to have legs, and will not risk losing the audience with unpleasant revelations if it is not believed that said revelations will prove to be an attraction to a wide audience. If it appears that the government has wide-spread support, there will be damned few stories critical of the government on offer, as this will be seen as too great a risk to audience-share. America hasn't "dumbed-down," rather, its media outlets have become so conditioned by corporate profit policies as to have abandoned almost all journalistic standards of the type which are considered the best offered by the print media.

Sweetiepie, the "ridicule" in which said individual indulges more often than not simply makes him look the more ridiculous . . . and i agree, when something stinks that much, it's best to step around it . . .

we have. we are. and people like you are digging in your heels and yowling for the good old days.

but congratulations. you managed to respond to me, even when i'm joking with you, with ninny. but you did manage to respond without using the words "hypocrisy" or "hate(s) america".

btw, one of the smartest things that my gramps ever said to me when i asked him about the good old days; "the good old days? hmmpphhh. nuthin' good about 'em".

Yeah.....but what does Gramps say about the "hand wringing guilt trip" that whiners are on today?



Just how far back does Gramps consider the Good Ole Days? Anything back of WW2 is off limits as being irrelevant to our conversation today.

ehBeth

I'm shocked......this is very un-lady like. It's OK though......I fully understand that you want to protect my underdog "Pal".

I have a suspicion that you are not aquainted with very many ladies.

He is also apparently no acquainted with the topic of the thread, as he has not contributed a single coherent thought to the topic.

That's most probably the tactic: Do anything to keep the topic from getting discussed.

It has been getting discussed despite his silliness, though, EB . . . right now, the genuine participants are in a discussion of the role of media in politics, and what motivates them. The thread seems to be troll-proof, to this point, at least . . .

hahaha! well gramps hasn't said anything for 30 years, god bless 'em. didn't say much before that, and only between naps. that guy could fall asleep in a chair with a jaw full of chaw and not even cough. the 8th wonder of the world, i tell ya.

what he would say is probably what he always said, "damn hippies".

now my pop, he rolls with your gang, no matter what i say, it's "damn liburalllls".

pretty funny when a new yorker calls a country boy a "damn liberrrullll" . :wink:

by the way, just what do you consider hand wringing ?

Hell, I don't know........I just thought it might piss off a liberrrulll.

BTW.... your dad sounds like my kind of guy.

By in large I agree with what Set posted. And, as he stated, since media outlets are, for the most part, trying to attract the widest possible audience (or, if you prefer, playing to the lowest common denominator), they tend to avoid anything with real teeth unless it'll really bring in the viewers/listeners. There are still some print media offering decent reporting, but many of them are following the trail blazed by tv and radio.

There's another important variable in this equation, however: corporate sponsors. Dirt does indeed sell, but what red-blooded American doesn't want to hear about the corruption and misdeeds amongst the wealthy and powerful? Yet, we hear precious little about corporate misdeeds and corruption (plenty about Michael Jackson, but while rich, his influence among the power elite of our country is nil). We usually only hear about major corporate corruption and misdeeds when the story is too big to keep quiet (e.g., Enron--thousands of employees out of work and devoid of their long anticipated retirement benefits is pretty hard to sweep under the rug). Why is this? Because all of the revenue in radio, tv, and most national newspapers is generated by advertising. Most people think they're the consumers of radio, tv and newspapers, but corporations are, in fact, the real consumers. We're the product radio, tv and newspapers are selling to the corporations. The media is forever trying to balance the content that will bring in the most listeners/viewers/readers with the content that won't pi$$-off their corporate sponsors. This leads to a classic capitalistic conundrum: the necessity of an informed citizenry in a democracy versus profit motive. (I don't think I need to state which the media chose when they had to resolve this.)

If you want to know why some politicians or political issues receive media scrutiny while others don't, look no farther than the interests of the major corporations (and the people running them). I don't think the media intentionally tries to distract us from important issues with stories about Michael Jackson or the 'Runaway Bride', I think they spend so much time covering stories like these because they're safe.

Bingo ! ! !

Give the man a ceegar . . . that's it in a nutshell. When you go to national chain restaurants, the food is bland because they don't want to offend any palates. They'd rather lose the custom of a few people with high standards in cuisine rather than risk offending the general run of customers. And their customers come back again and again because their dining experience is safe. No surprises in the menu. The listeners and viewers of news media have the same reaction--often they'd rather not hear unsettling reports of a world which exploits them and about which they can do nothing. They want to see the dirt on Michael, or tut-tut about the runaway bride, because focusing on such trivialities is intellectually safe for them.

Not just safe; eminently profitable.

It's the Lowest Common Denominator; the story that will appeal to the greatest number of people. And for some reason large segments of our society are more entertained by watching 'Missing White Woman in Aruba, day 58' or 'Shark attacks off of the coast of Texas' then any substantive news.

Never forget that the news is ran by corporations whose overall goal is to increase profit by the maximum amount possible....

Cycloptichorn