No Bad News - Big Media or Stupid Public?

[Stravo]

Michael Moore recently went off on CNN complaining that the big media outlets have essentially been asleep at the wheel now for years, particularly in regards to this administartion and its essential awfulness. Vympel has a link to the actual rant by Moore against Wolf Blitzer and CNN. Here

My thoughts turned to another observation of mine. People don't like to hear bad news. I will qualify it and say Americans don't like to hear about bad news. When I watch the news from other nations say BBC or see movies from abroad they don't hold back the punches in terms of bad stuff and nonhappy endings.

We also know that the news media runs shit like the Paris Hilton crap and celebrity news in general as opposed to "Yet another bloody day in Iraq" because that's what people want to see. IIRC Peter Jennings once complained that the news tried to run stories on somber grimmer things going on and the American public would simply tune out. When he tried to run series of stories on political corruption and such the ratings would drop, touchy feel good stories? Ratings would climb.

So is Big Media really to blame for being asleep at the wheel or like any big business (THAT is its own issue) is it merely feeding the beast of what the viewing public wants? Is Michael Moore being unfair to the Big Media as opposed to turning to his audience and calling them morons for wanting to avoid bad news?

What are your thoughts?

[Keevan_Colton]

The trouble is a combination of the two, and of course the fact that news is treated as a commodity now. The corporate ownership of the media has a lot to answer for with regards to this, they don't regard the viewer or reader as a citizen looking to be informed, but instead a customer. There is a major difference.

You can see this very clearly with the BBC which is a public service broadcaster, its mandate is first to inform, then educate and finally entertain. Frankly Lord Reith would throw a fit at the state of the media today...though you are right in that people do get the media they deserve, if you don't push for hard hitting coverage (which costs way more to produce in terms of overheads and time compared to fluff celeb pieces) then you wont get any from a corporate environment. Remember, the only motivation of a corporation is to increase profits. They have no mandate to perform public service, if they can generate more money by only covering cheap fluff nonsense without loosing consumers (that they sell to advertisers) then as a corporate entity they would be in trouble for not doing so.

[ColonialAdmiral]

I don't know how much longer the news will last under the current policy. I know that there will always be a group of people interested in the news, but Corperate news ratings all around are droping as less people want to read papers, or watch TV news. Part of it is the availablity of news on the Internet, at any time you choose. The other part is that a good portion of the population are tunnel -visioned, and could care less about what the hell is happening in the rest of the world. Corperate media can either keep on its path of "Feel-good" stories and risk alienating the base of people who want to know whats really going on...or they can actually look towards the future and realise that they should be building on the population who actually cares.*

That or they can start charging people to vist their websites...


*(My opinion)

[Coyote]

A vicious cycle of both. I was particularly vexed by this when one weekend I tried finding some news on cable, CNN in particular, and it was hours and hours of Glenn-fucking-Beck, followed by Nancy Grace and her breathless exhortations about a "epidemic" of pregnant-mom murders across the US because a second one had disappeared after that one chick got killed by her philandering ex-cop BF.

Sad truth is, people want to watch celebrity "news" and sports, and that's about it. Particularly in America, the desire to "tune out" everything else in the world is growing particularly acute, and I do indeed have low expectations of the future.

[Stormbringer]

What are your thoughts?

People are dumb. Why do you think there are networks like E! or any of the others that are literally nothing but celebrity gossip? Why do you think some of the most popular news related programs are simply partisan wack-jobs screaming at each other? Or that lurid stories often cut out real news events? People don't want really they want an info-taining clusterfuck.

The Mass Media® is and always has been a travesty. The fire and a freak show formula has always outsold solid journalism which is one thing people tend to forget. William Randolph Hearst would be quite at home, we've got some one like him in Rupert Murdoch. So really it shouldn't come as any great surprise that the media is letting us down; it's just right now their bad reporting matters more.

Personally, that's one reason I tend to get my news from sources like NPR. They're highbrow and actually care about good journalism, education, and objectivity. It's amazing what sort of difference can be made by shooting for a more intellectual crowd and not being dependent on rabid consumerism.

PS: I always love the unspoken assumption that political shills like Moore have that a objective, intelligent media would always agree with them. If I've picked up anything these days it's that often the facts don't always fit with either side's assumptions.

[Dartzap]

In the UK, people get their main televised from the likes of the BBC, however they tend to only cover things briefly - If you want the nitty gritty, sometimes horrific details, you turn to Channel 4 News, often considered to be the superior new bulletin.

The current segment about US troopers in this Surge is quite shocking.

[tim31]

When I was studying journalism at university, I went to lecture after lecture where they would tell us about the ethics and responsibilty to the public to report the facts, and then they would conclude said lectures by telling us that all that shit goes out the window in the real world. Most of the time, hard news isn't marketable.

I decided not to pursue a career in said field.

[Keevan_Colton]

Well, Channel 4 does have a hybrid existence, it's partially mandated as a public service broadcaster.

[Dartzap]

Well, Channel 4 does have a hybrid existence, it's partially mandated as a public service broadcaster.

Quite true.

To actually warn adults to chuck their kids out of the room before a report....that's a certainly a new one.

[ColonialAdmiral]

To actually warn adults to chuck their kids out of the room before a report....that's a certainly a new one.

They did that in the states as well during the begining of the Iraq and Afghan wars. It was only during the really early period though, during the first few weeks that they would show people geting shot. (Even Blood on the camera.)

[Keevan_Colton]

To actually warn adults to chuck their kids out of the room before a report....that's a certainly a new one.

They did that in the states as well during the begining of the Iraq and Afghan wars. It was only during the really early period though, during the first few weeks that they would show people geting shot. (Even Blood on the camera.)

It's a regular fixture of the channel 4 evening news, they are the only terrestrial channel that still does an hour long evening bulletin. They also follow it up with a more in depth show on More 4.

Interestingly enough, Good Night and Good Luck was on tonight on Sky. Clooney is a little ham fisted at times in his direction, but he does address this issue in a few of the monologues. There is a point where Ed Murrow in the film goes off on one about how informative media is important and reflects well in the long term on corporate interests. Shame that corporations are by their nature myopic.

The real issue that come from this is that there is a key ingredient in a democratic society. An informed electorate. If the electorate is not well informed then democracy cannot really function. There is still a need for a strong and disinterested media, in order to serve as the "Fourth Estate", unfortunately, it is damn near impossible to get a disinterested media in a corporate environment. There will always be pressures, sometimes subtle to ensure that ratings are higher and that stories are not run counter to the interests of the related interests.

The real problem lies with the public, they do not hold the media to account. There is too much apathy in the public, they tend to shrug their shoulders when confronted with corruption and misconduct, this isn't helped at all by the media practices of political entities in America, where the lax defamation laws make muddying the waters a trivial matter.

Corporate models for the media function exactly to specification, it's just a shitty model, much as it is in other services essential to the function of society.

[MKSheppard]

The corporate ownership of the media has a lot to answer for with regards to this, they don't regard the viewer or reader as a citizen looking to be informed, but instead a customer. There is a major difference.

Why sir, but the media is keeping us informed on the perfidious threat of the German Waiter who waits silently in our restaurants and other assorted businesses until the signal has been given to rise up with hidden rifles against Britain!

--British Equivalent of Wm. Randolph Hearst.

[Keevan_Colton]

The corporate ownership of the media has a lot to answer for with regards to this, they don't regard the viewer or reader as a citizen looking to be informed, but instead a customer. There is a major difference.

Why sir, but the media is keeping us informed on the perfidious threat of the German Waiter who waits silently in our restaurants and other assorted businesses until the signal has been given to rise up with hidden rifles against Britain!

--British Equivalent of Wm. Randolph Hearst.

Have you anything useful to add you worthless cumstain?

[MKSheppard]

Have you anything useful to add you worthless cumstain?

Do you contribute anything except worthless flames?

I'm surprised you don't know about the lurid invasion scares of the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s etc; where the British media would splash all sorts of ludicrous schemes about how the French Waiters in restauraunts were really a secret 5th Column (it later switched to German Waiters); followed by fantastical schemes about how the French would dig a tunnel under the Channel and invade England.

Your assertion that Corporate ownership of the (British) media leading to lurid stories for customers to outsell their competitors being a new thing is essentally false.

[Keevan_Colton]

Have you anything useful to add you worthless cumstain?

Do you contribute anything except worthless flames?

I'm surprised you don't know about the lurid invasion scares of the 1880s, 1890s, 1900s etc; where the British media would splash all sorts of ludicrous schemes about how the French Waiters in restauraunts were really a secret 5th Column (it later switched to German Waiters); followed by fantastical schemes about how the French would dig a tunnel under the Channel and invade England.

Your assertion that Corporate ownership of the (British) media leading to lurid stories for customers to outsell their competitors being a new thing is essentally false.

Read carefully, I never said it was a new thing cumstain. The fact is back then there were very different conditions, aided not least by the fact that there was a distinct plurality of ownership, compared to the increasingly concentrated nature of modern ownership. Wider competition helps to mitigate the impact of corporate interference, unfortunately, the nature of corporate models invovle concentration and the increasing competitive (in monetary terms) nature of entities. Unfortunately, there isnt a profit in in depth investigative journalism when for a fraction of the investment you can get readers or viewers with fluff nonsense.

The fact is you clearly cant fucking read, since I have already pointed out that the corporate model is not a good one for providing an informed electorate I never claimed that it EVER WAS SHITHEAD. A model which has the listener, viewer or reader regarded as a consumer cannot hope to provide what is needed for the optimal functioning of democracy, an informed citizenry and electorate. For that you need some kind of public service mandate involved in the equasion, some sort of Reithian impetus.

Not that you're likely to understand that you brain dead donkey fucker.

[Spyder]

You can broadly blame the populace but I wouldn't imagine any other populace, when placed under the same conditions and upbringing would behave any differently.

Ultimately it is the media's responsibility to show the news, regardless of whether the audience wants to hear it or not.

[MKSheppard]

<snip Keevan's foul rant>

I shall translate it for the people of delicate sensibilities in this thread:

"Blah blah blah plurality blah blah blah. I have no idea how to answer Shep's point so I am just gonna pretend that the two different systems didn't produce similar results."

If wider competition mitgated the impact of Corporate influence, then why, did in such a "Golden age of British Journalism"; did we have:

Articles about fears of Indian revolts.
Articles about the Chinese invasion of Australia.
Articles about the Chinese invasion of the East End
Articles about the aforementioned German/French Waiters
Articles about a French Plot to dig a tunnel under the Channel and infiltrate troops via it for the conquest of Britain.

Now, I admit that I cannot do a detailed study on the frequency of such "scares" in the British media; due to me being all the way across an ocean, but you can do it quite easily; I'm sure you have some of the older papers microfilmed at your local regional library branch.

Anyway, the answer to why the media is lowest common denominator across the centuries is this: sensationalism sells papers no matter what the date on the letterhead; whether it be July 12, 1907 or July 12, 2007; and the teeming masses snap it all up.

[Dalton]

Speaking as an insider, Keevan was the first to hit the nail right on the head. It wasn't always like this; back when the networks owned themselves, we saw a lot more in terms of actual journalism and news that mattered. The news broadcast would consist of a good chunk of international news, a smaller chunk of national news, a little bit of local news, then the weather and the sports. These days, local news and national news has taken precedence, and little if any international news appears whatsoever, with a miniscule amount on cable news stations as long as it's somehow related to America or its allies.

Note how many international news stories these days mention how many Americans were affected. That's why the atrocities in Darfur aren't even a blip on our radar: there's nothing there having to do with America. I remember one day being surprised that there was a Darfur story, only to realize that it was because Angelina Jolie was there.

American news media has become a corporate whore. It is nothing more than a tool for the Big Eleven conglomerates that own almost every single news outlet in the country. A station's status quo is determined by the whims and desires of its parent. Corporate ownership is the single root cause for the decline of our news media's journalistic prowess.

There was a time where it was the media's job to question the government; to investigate, dig up dirt, report on and generally inform the people of what their government was doing, and how it affected the entire world. Now, all we talk about is who's hot, what's trendy and which politician has the most points--I mean, votes.

The American people aren't helping this, either. Our current culture is such that celebrities are worshipped and revered. People live vicariously through such useless examples of human waste as Paris Hilton. They are told what to think and how to feel by the media. They do not want to challenge themselves; they instead gravitate towards those things which already confirm who they are. And the media is willing to oblige. People want to watch garbage, so the news provides garbage. That's all there is to it.

[MKSheppard]

By the way; the idea of a media slavishly following the actions of a relative nobody is not new. Paris Hilton's "fame" and all the focus on stupid celebrities is what the "Society Pages" of the papers morphed into.

Back then, it was usually a full page or so in a small newspaper devoted to the movement of the aristrocracy; such as "Crown Prince so and so is in town", and "Duchess X just bought a cute little doggie."

It just is a lot more noticeable today due to the increasing cheapness of media distribution formats; they need to fill up all that empty space formed by 512 Channels on Digital Cable, and Hitler Channel Reruns ain't cutting it; so we'll send a couple of reporters out to report on the Royals and Hollywood celebrities to fill up a couple channels.

[Flagg]

I honestly think it comes down to a few things, really.

Just like any other TV show, they make their money by attractign and keeping viewers in order to be able to charge more for ad time. So they cover stories that really aren't particularly newsworthy. Like Anna Nicole's Baby-Daddy, this weeks attractive missing white girl, or Paris Hilton's 3 weeks in jail. You know, things that would otherwise be local news concerns, or pure tabloid fodder.

Then you have the retarded idea that fair and balanced coverage means attacking both sides of an issue equally. Don't cover too many stories that make one side look bad unless you can make the other side out to be just as bad, otherwise you're biased! That's why you end up having the Clinton pardon of Mark Rich getting dredged up after the Libby commutation as if they have anything at all to do with eachother. This goes so far that your average cable news show is essentially 2 guys yelling at eachother with a smiling anchor featuring a blank expression on their face occasionally asking questions and monitoring the time.

And then let's not forget cowardice and laziness. After 9/11 all of the major news outlets were terrified that if they criticized the government in any way, they would end up losing all of their sponsers. Which is exactly what happened to Bill Mahr. And now all too often the major outlets simply print and air government press releases as actual new stories, without any serious vetting. It's to the point where they actually cited Chertoffs "gut feeling" as an indication that more terrorist attacks are coming. These people are so lazy or cowed that they let the stories they cover be dictated by the Bush administration. Every time there was an event they didn't want covered, they would release a statement about some vague threat, or raise the terror alert level, and the media would happily devote the vast majority of their coverage to that.

[MKSheppard]

It wasn't always like this; back when the networks owned themselves, we saw a lot more in terms of actual journalism and news that mattered. The news broadcast would consist of a good chunk of international news, a smaller chunk of national news, a little bit of local news, then the weather and the sports. These days, local news and national news has taken precedence, and little if any international news appears whatsoever, with a miniscule amount on cable news stations as long as it's somehow related to America or its allies.

Perhaps, you know, the end of the Cold War caused that change? Back then, there was always the possibility that some minor flareup would lead to NATO/WARPAC confrontation and World War Three. Now, more people are more interested in local news that matters to them, than some people killing other people in a country we don't care about or know the capital of.

There was a time where it was the media's job to question the government; to investigate, dig up dirt, report on and generally inform the people of what their government was doing, and how it affected the entire world. Now, all we talk about is who's hot, what's trendy and which politician has the most points--I mean, votes.

That's a mighty tall claim Dalton, considering the fact that the media over the last six years has spent a lot of it's time in opposition to the Iraq war, digging through the Bush Administrations' skeleton closet, etc, talking about the Plame Affair, etc etc.

The Washington Post just recently concluded a series of articles on Dick Cheney's influence; I believe that Nitram reposted them to SDN. How can you claim that the media is no longer digging up dirt, when it clearly is, they uncovered how Cheney caused one of the biggest fish kills in US History and then tried to cover up his tracks.

[Keevan_Colton]

Close Flagg, but not all. Don't forget that a FOX affiliate won a case on the legal basis that it is their first amendment right to lie in the news. I recommend the film "Outfoxed: Rupert Murdoch's War on Journalism", it features some illuminating insights into the nature of corporate interference with journalism.

There also a section in the film "The Corporation" which looks at the impact of corporate ownership on the news. Again, FOX is at the center, but it is a fine example of the problems inherent in concentrated corporate ownership.

I've not asserted that this is a new thing, but corporate concentration does make the problem more pronounced.

The fact is that investigative journalism and hard hitting reports are not profitable, and that is mostly the fault of the public. The reason I keep bringing up public service mandates is that they legally require journalistic content that informs the citizenry rather than leaving it to the owners to decide what to cover.

[Keevan_Colton]

It wasn't always like this; back when the networks owned themselves, we saw a lot more in terms of actual journalism and news that mattered. The news broadcast would consist of a good chunk of international news, a smaller chunk of national news, a little bit of local news, then the weather and the sports. These days, local news and national news has taken precedence, and little if any international news appears whatsoever, with a miniscule amount on cable news stations as long as it's somehow related to America or its allies.

Perhaps, you know, the end of the Cold War caused that change? Back then, there was always the possibility that some minor flareup would lead to NATO/WARPAC confrontation and World War Three. Now, more people are more interested in local news that matters to them, than some people killing other people in a country we don't care about or know the capital of.

Newsflash, America is part of the world, everything that happens in it is connected. The fact is that news values have changed in the increasingly concentrated world of ownership. Popular news is given priority. This isnt new, there is an rather famous book entitled "Anyone Here Been Raped And Speak English?" looking at foreign affairs coverage. But that doesnt alter the fact that there is a major difference between what people need to be told about and what they want to be told about.

There was a time where it was the media's job to question the government; to investigate, dig up dirt, report on and generally inform the people of what their government was doing, and how it affected the entire world. Now, all we talk about is who's hot, what's trendy and which politician has the most points--I mean, votes.

That's a mighty tall claim Dalton, considering the fact that the media over the last six years has spent a lot of it's time in opposition to the Iraq war, digging through the Bush Administrations' skeleton closet, etc, talking about the Plame Affair, etc etc.

The Washington Post just recently concluded a series of articles on Dick Cheney's influence; I believe that Nitram reposted them to SDN. How can you claim that the media is no longer digging up dirt, when it clearly is, they uncovered how Cheney caused one of the biggest fish kills in US History and then tried to cover up his tracks.

Where is the television coverage of this? Newspapers are in decline largely because they're being relegated to the role of viewspapers (I could write an entire essay on this topic alone, and in fact I have.) but the fact is television has more impact and is the only medium that isnt narrowcasted in nature. The fact is that these are things that the majority of the media isnt covering these things in broadcast form. The concentration of corporate ownership has a serious impact on the news values of outlets.

The fact is that narrowcasted mediums dont provide the same service essential to democracy informing citizens, because they rely on the whims of consumers. Not that shep boy here will actually understand a damn thing about all this....though it is nice that he trys to make it all about the cold war...

[SirNitram]

That's a mighty tall claim Dalton, considering the fact that the media over the last six years has spent a lot of it's time in opposition to the Iraq war, digging through the Bush Administrations' skeleton closet, etc, talking about the Plame Affair, etc etc.

Which parallel universe are you living in?

Papers and news channels are quoting White House and Pentagon press releases verbatim on Iraq.

But these are stories you haven't been reading in The Times in recent weeks as the newspaper has slipped into a routine of quoting the president and the military uncritically about Al Qaeda's role in Iraq -- and sometimes citing the group itself without attribution.

And in using the language of the administration, the newspaper has also failed at times to distinguish between Al Qaeda, the group that attacked the United States on Sept. 11, and Al Qaeda in Mesopotamia, an Iraqi group that didn't even exist until after the American invasion. . . .

Washington Post.

Washington: What can possibly be gained by congressional hearings into the Libby commutation? Clearly Bush had the authority to do this, and he did it. Q.E.D. I'm old enough to remember when President Ford appeared before a congressional committee to explain his pardon of Richard Nixon. But Bush is no Ford, and unlike the Ford pardon, I don't think this action is going to look better over time.

Shailagh Murray: YAAWWN. That's my view of the Libby flap. What on earth did people expect Bush to do?

Yea, feel that outrage and incessant coverage!

Let us not forget the intense, hard-hitting trashing of GOP Presidential candidates!

Can you smell the English leather on this guy, the Aqua Velva, the sort of mature man's shaving cream, or whatever, you know, after he shaved? Do you smell that sort of -- a little bit of cigar smoke? You know, whatever.

Okay, but maybe that's just a one-off mancrush.

Romney has chiseled-out-of-granite features, a full, dark head of hair going a distinguished gray at the temples, and a barrel chest. On the morning that he announced for president, I bumped into him in the lounge of the Marriott and up close he is almost overpowering. He radiates vigor.

Nope, a pattern emerges.

And investigations? Hah! The political media(Pundits, I believe they're usually called) have followed their self-proclaimed 'Dean' Broder in declaring investigations 'Not what the people want' despite polls to exact opposite conclusion.

So, yea, Shep, you're full of it.

[Dalton]

Perhaps, you know, the end of the Cold War caused that change? Back then, there was always the possibility that some minor flareup would lead to NATO/WARPAC confrontation and World War Three. Now, more people are more interested in local news that matters to them, than some people killing other people in a country we don't care about or know the capital of.

We as a nation are selfish to a point that we only care about what affects us personally. News about country X doesn't fit the bill because it's too abstract. Nobody gives a damn because "hey, they're not Americans". It's a self-perpetuating cycle of ignorance and apathy.

That's a mighty tall claim Dalton, considering the fact that the media over the last six years has spent a lot of it's time in opposition to the Iraq war, digging through the Bush Administrations' skeleton closet, etc, talking about the Plame Affair, etc etc.

The media has also spent the same amount of time justifying the bullshit and calling out the whistleblowers. The whole Iraq War opposition and everything related to it is a big deal because it directly affects the corporations who are controlling the media.

The Washington Post just recently concluded a series of articles on Dick Cheney's influence; I believe that Nitram reposted them to SDN. How can you claim that the media is no longer digging up dirt, when it clearly is, they uncovered how Cheney caused one of the biggest fish kills in US History and then tried to cover up his tracks.

I claim it because it is the exception rather than the rule. I think that the only reason why things are beginning to turn around now is because of the general public's disgust with the current administration.

Seriously, take a look at the news networks. I'm here every day and it's all about bullshit. Missing white women, celebrity hijinks, political gaffes and the 2008 Presidential Board Game.