out of curiosity, why is our news SOOOOOOO local?? - Page 2

AzNMpower32 · #11 01-23-2007, 09:29 AM

Bad news is more interesting to (American) viewers than good news, and since all the media cares about is the # of viewers, bad news is what shows up as "news" thesedays.

Sponsored Links

tijanaw · #12 01-23-2007, 09:03 PM

Quote:

Originally Posted by crosvs

Having travelled the world quite a bit -- although mostly throughout Europe -- there's something I still don't understand:

Why is it that it *seems* (i do not claim to presume that this is an accurate statistic) that 75%+ of our news stories involve matters of killings, rapings, child abandonments/abductions, or random miscellaneous "weird stories" like the "mysterious chunk of ice that fell through a San Diego home", and that our weather reports RARELY even seem to include international weather reports.....

...... while European newspapers and TV channels have far MORE international news, they have far FEWER killings, rapings, child abandonments/abductions, or random misc stories -- and all their weather reports include, well, the whole world, even all of the US?!?!

In short: why is it that American newspapers and news channels seem to be a very literal SUBSET of European news?? Why are we getting so short-changed ?????

After living here 10 years I still don't understand the news format here, soo poor. It's ashamed since this is the reason why most Americans are so clueless of the world they live in and generally have the wrong perception of other cultures, langages and geography.

JV · #13 01-23-2007, 09:37 PM

with what B-Line said and let me add that while pretty much the rest of the world (with a few exceptions) enjoys watching state-owned and operated television, here in the U.S. it's all privately owned and operated and definitely for profit! The General Manager of your local U.S. TV station (who is responsible for the local newscast) is a former salesperson, and 99% of them do not have any journalistic or on-camera background whatsoever.

crosvs · #14 01-24-2007, 02:26 PM

This is all very discouraging news indeed. (pun intended!)

So what assurances are there that these privately-owned-and-dumbed-down news companies are actually giving us the most accurate, unbiased, "un-propagandized" news, if all they care about is first and foremost to increase their profits by feeding us just what we want to hear?

Since MOST (e.g., greater than 50%) Americans likely acquire their news through the "common media"; and since MOST of those Americans form their beliefs and therefore their political views upon the news from that "common media"; and SINCE this message thread has shown that we seem to agree that this "common media" is anything but a good source of the true nature of world events, then shouldn't one aim to NOT agree with the same political views that MOST of Americans subscribe to?

My point: when most of the country was (and a lot still is) so in support of George W's foreign policies overseas, and most of that support was at least strengthened -- if not spawned -- from the "common media" news, then shouldn't that imply that, more likely than not, even absent ANY political reasoning whatsoever, those in favor of George W are probably wrong, and that W's foreign policies are therefore very likely ... WRONG?!

And now perhaps we can return to: http://www.xoutpost.com/lounge/25661-war.html

ylwjacket · #15 01-24-2007, 02:43 PM

You're not seeing the same polls as the rest of us. I don't think most of the country is in favor of the POTUS's foreign policies. If they were, Dennis Hastert would have been in the big chair last night instead of Nancy Pelosi.

The real problem is that there are only a handful of Americans that are mentally on par with even the average European. They are just so smart, and know so much, that we gave up trying a copule of hundred years ago.
It's kind of like dropping the class in college that required a term paper, because you'd fail if you had to actually think.

I'm sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that Europe is 3,000 miles away, separated by an ocean, and about 1/2% of the US population has ever been or will ever go there. Also, I'm sure that it has nothing to do with the fact that, until the advent of the information age, over just the past decade, the world seem very large, and we seemed very far away from most of it.

noncom23 · #16 01-24-2007, 03:33 PM

http://www.philly.com/mld/philly/sports/16530050.htm
Case and point.

Quote:

Originally Posted by B-Line

Ok, here we go:

Because most people in the U.S. generally see the news media as a public service, a-la, the police or fire department, truth of the matter is, that couldn't be further from the truth. First and foremost, the news media is a business. It has the same fiscal responsibilities as any other company/industry.
It strives for growth, increased profits, etc. etc.

So in trying to evaluate why in the U.S. is the news we get so salacious, the reason is simple. The news media is giving the people what they want.

Yes, that's right, it's our own fault. Because the news media is able to track what keeps people tuned in and what keeps people from channel flipping, the results have further prompted news broadcasters to present segments that will hopefully keep people from flipping over to what ever else is on television.

So as long as the news media has a fiduciary responsibility to it's shareholders, that same media is going to give the audience exactly what keeps the viewers interested.

btw, my undergraduate degree was in Broadcast Journalism. The day I decided that I wanted to have nothing to do with that field post graduation was when I was told I had to "dumb" down my writing for a 3rd grade audience. YES, that is the standard for local broadcast news. They insisted that proper speech be traded with local slang and to try to reach the "greatest common denominator"..

Furthermore, the idea of being objective in a story was secondary to getting the good "sound bites"...

Unfortunately, it is just as much the fault of the audience as it is the fault of the broadcasters. There certainley is better news but that serves a niche market..

- And as long as we are talking about the media, I for one would not mind seeing a change in the Bill of Rights as we know it. Yes, I love a "free press" but I don't think that every press orginizaton should be protected under the 1st Amendment. I believe that only "NOT FOR PROFIT" news orginizations like the (AP) should have the full rights to the 1st Amendment.
Any news orginization that is responsible for generating profits should have stricter rules and regulations that applies to them especially in terms of accountability.
It is of my opinion that the news orginizations take advantage of the "free press" and run over many people's lives unfairly with little to no recourse.

Yes, a free press is essential to a Democracy, but who said that the "free press" need be profit driven corporations.

B

The Big Easy · #17 01-24-2007, 03:43 PM

Michelle, what is up with that avatar ?!

Couldn't agree with you all more, it is what feeds the masses, and why should they bother, so many states with so many local stories.
Try SKY as well as BBC, pretty good coverage.

the head · #18 01-24-2007, 04:14 PM

This is why I only watch BBC news and the Bloomberg network evern CNN and CNBC are full of shlock and bullshit these days

noncom23 · #19 01-24-2007, 04:23 PM

Yeah I am sad to say even CNN is just a fashion show every
day now. Its like your AM local news and sadly, totally
unbelievable.

Quote:

Originally Posted by the head

This is why I only watch BBC news and the Bloomberg network evern CNN and CNBC are full of shlock and bullshit these days

Quicksilver · #20 01-24-2007, 04:27 PM

Good question!!!

Quote:

Originally Posted by The Big Easy

Michelle, what is up with that avatar ?!
[/B]

Thread Tools
Show Printable Version Email this Page
Display Modes
Linear Mode Switch to Hybrid Mode Switch to Threaded Mode

Sponsored Links