I'm thinking more in terms of Americans in my adult life. I see people getting more and more accustom to settling for less from our schools, businesses, government, and media. It seems like we are willing to just live with increasing levels of incompetence, laziness, corruption and stupidity as the new normal.I'm not really sure I believe this but it is possible. One explanation for this could be the introduction of women into the work force en-mass. Previously if there was a problem ones housewife could spend her whole afternoon on the phone trying to get the problem fixed and harassing the costumer service people until something was done. The threat of this sort of thing kept companies on the straight and narrow.
These days who has the time?
Yes but if we won't consume they can't sell.Commercial networks and most other news sources exist to sell advertisement time. Their primary goal is to broaden the number of people watching...Exactly. We the People aren't the consumer's of corporate news. We are the product; our viewer ratings (or web clicks) are being sold to advertisers. Advertisers are the consumers. "News" corporations will reformulate their bait to Us to ensure a constant revenue stream from advertisers... if it gets ratings, it's news!
{goes back to plinking BBs at pesky youngsters on lawn}
which is why you have to identify your market and then tell them what they want to hear.
Solid fact finding news has become something of a niche market.
I reckon so; I just wish that the niche would expand rather than contract.
You also have to consider what the news is for - ignoring the entity doing the news and their motivation.
Is it to inform the people, educate the people or entertain the people?
It started to educate the people - as a an individual or group trying to get their opinion out in to the public mainstream. A form of propaganda.
Then it became to inform the people - low bias and accurate reporting with editorial comment. Also a form of propaganda but usually with bias declared and recognised.
Then it became to entertain people, people seem to dislike the hard questions where the answers might imply they need to change. Also a form of propaganda - everything is fine, carry on, no need to change anything.
Nows its creeping (or steam rolling depending on your point of view) back into "educate", i.e. a propaganda force.
So to answer the original post, no it hasn't gotten lazy - it doing exactly what it means to and with a lot of work/money behind it.
The bottom line - is the bottom line, Its about being able to maximise advertising and minimise costs.
News is not actually about news - Its about what sells, for example what is going to get more people looking (and advertising money):
Sports celeb A shags cheerleaders
or
Local council is going to build parking lot(after knocking down aged care centre (not that anybody would have investigated this as its not cost effective).
The whole model of "news" is broken we cant have impartial investigative news while it is sponsored by advertising dollars as it is forced cater to the lowest common denominator.
I don't know that I have one, though I tend to lean toward some sort of tax-supported, public model.Edit: Equal time was, as I understand it, an (imperfect) attempt to ensure all sides get a say.
No, equal time was a politically motivated stunt to try to hamper the relentless rise of The New Media.
Personally, I would never, ever want a tax-supported model. Let the free market decide what the best model is. Thinking that the corporations are the key part of the problem seems a bit...short-sighted. If anything, corporations running the news improve the process, because they care about results. You think the bias is bad now? Let the news become a "public model", and it will be two things:
1. Biased to those who spend their lives working for the government,
2. A money pit, which, condering the thousands of useless government agencies we already have, would be the last thing that we need another of.
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Have to disagree with you on a couple of points Juan.
'equal time' AKA things such as the 'fairness doctrine' predates 'new media'. The (idealistic) concept was from days gone by where there *was* a bottleneck of information. finite radio stations, tv stations etc. It was (wisely I feel) abolished in the 80's as technology even then outpaced its usefulness. While the threat of the 'fairness doctrine' or Al Sharpton's latest ramblings against Rush Limbaugh* may now serve as examples to curtail free speech under the guise of 'equal time' the fact remains that it predates this.
Likewise, NPR and CPB both stem from that time, and (again, IMNSHO) have outlived their usefulness. When Dora the Explorer and Auction Kings can survive on cable, do we really need PBS to bring us Sesame Street and Antiques Roadshow? Couldn't they survive/thrive on cable as well? Likewise, as a kid in the 70's/80's I learned of Doctor Who on PBS, now I have BBCA (and finally in HD!).
Corporate news *does* have its biases. To Fox's credit, when I hear them source another Murdoch owned company, they do reference it. I don't hear MSNBC doing a 'full disclosure' when extoling the virtues of wind power. They may, but I've not seen/heard it. I don't expect ABC to run articles on Disney flexing its power in Florida (at least in the 90's some Orlando residents called them "DisNazis"). but if Fox runs news on BP having contributed so much to President Obama, and MSNBC runs news on Murdoch buying up yet another newspaper, they *can* balance each other out.
Re: Rush/Hannity/Beck vs. Air America
I agree with you on what NPR has become (a money pit, biased, etc). Just ask Juan Williams. But I disagree with your timeline.
*
Corporate news *does* have its biases.
And I've never said that it doesn't. But, the fact is, I'd rather have that bias based on what makes the most money rather than biased towards career government types. If what you're reporting is worth listening to, it will succeed, regardless of other forces at work in the market.
Air America:
Fairness Doctrine
The bottom line - is the bottom line, Its about being able to maximise advertising and minimise costs.
News is not actually about news - Its about what sells, for example what is going to get more people looking (and advertising money):
Sports celeb A shags cheerleaders
or
Local council is going to build parking lot(after knocking down aged care centre (not that anybody would have investigated this as its not cost effective).
The whole model of "news" is broken we cant have impartial investigative news while it is sponsored by advertising dollars as it is forced cater to the lowest common denominator.
What's your alternative solution?
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
Every major news organisation these days is owned by big corporate interests, in other words, they are owned by the very same people they should be watchdogging.I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
If you don't mind a disagreement... While every major news organization is owned by a corporation, they aren't all owned by the same corporation. I don't expect NBC to report on green energy boondogles since they're owned by GE, but I do expect ABC. I don't expect Fox to report on Newscorp misreporting something, but I expect CBS to, etc.
I'm curious, but who's a journalist here? Or has worked in today's news rooms?
I'm not a journalist, but I did stay at a Holiday Inn Express last night!
Corporate news *does* have its biases.And I've never said that it doesn't. But, the fact is, I'd rather have that bias based on what makes the most money rather than biased towards career government types. If what you're reporting is worth listening to, it will succeed, regardless of other forces at work in the market.
My big problem with Corporate News is that it has become all about selling ad time and not about the actual news. The news media is all about sensationalism. IMO, the reason we see the media as "liberal" is that because of the moral stances on the conservative side when they do something wrong it is more sensational... If a conservative, who is a huge proponent of family values, cheats on his wife that will become a much bigger story then the liberal who does the same. The later is just a dick, the former is a dick and a hypocrite.
And I've never said that it doesn't. But, the fact is, I'd rather have that bias based on what makes the most money rather than biased towards career government types.
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that I'd rather have something other than profit be the goal, since a rational profit motive results in catering to the lowest common denominator.
Kim Kardasian's Kool Klubhouse gets better ratings than actual news? Run it!
|
RPG Superstar 2009 Top 32, 2010 Top 8
|
And I've never said that it doesn't. But, the fact is, I'd rather have that bias based on what makes the most money rather than biased towards career government types.That's one way of looking at it. Another is that I'd rather have something other than profit be the goal, since a rational profit motive results in catering to the lowest common denominator.
Kim Kardasian's Kool Klubhouse gets better ratings than actual news? Run it!
Nothing wrong with profit, when dealing with a populace that chooses to be informed buyers.
MWP books are (on average) more expensive that Paizo books because a) they're smaller print runs and b) they're printed in the US (at least the DL books were). If Paizo charged MWP prices, they'd be making more of a profit per unit (but maybe suffering in overall sales, I'm speculating). If you bought Paizo books and then complained when you found out they were made in Chinese sweatshops by Falun Gong members who survived organ harvesting*, it's your own damn fault for not researching the product.**
I think the issue is, our populace is choosing to be informed on the bread and the circuses more than the government.
*
**
That's one way of looking at it. Another is that I'd rather have something other than profit be the goal, since a rational profit motive results in catering to the lowest common denominator.
I think part of the problem here is that you think of the common citizenry as "the lowest common denominator".
I think part of the problem here is that you think of the common citizenry as "the lowest common denominator".
Ah, the elitist card. Shocking.
Someone is watching this crap. If it makes me elitist to wish more cared about what's going on in the world than what Jessica Simpson wore to the Grammys, then so be it.
I think the issue is, our populace is choosing to be informed on the bread and the circuses more than the government.
Bingo! Though in this case it's mostly the circuses.
Would you stop agreeing with me! It's scaring the children. :P
Sorry!
I think our tax rates are short of peak revenue on the Laffer Curve...that should restore universal balance. :)
Ah, the elitist card. Shocking.
Well, that's certainly what it seems like. The true lowest common denominator in the news formula is the group of people who actually believe the media outlets (any media outlet) has ever even tried to be objective.
Mmmmm...Jessica Simpson
Well, that's certainly what it seems like. The true lowest common denominator in the news formula is the group of people who actually believe the media outlets (any media outlet) has ever even tried to be objective.Ah, the elitist card. Shocking.
All I'm trying to say is: Corporations exist to make money. If it's more profitable to report crap (and it is), then they will. After all, true freedom means being free to be ignorant and superficial, does it not? It seems we're complaining about the very thing for which we repeatedly ask.
Is it elitist of me to express a desire for better? Maybe; I don't know.
|
Muckraking and yellow journalism has a longstanding history in this country, dating back to the earliest days. You're noticing it more now, but that doesn't mean it was actually any better in the past.I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
+1
Hearst vs Pulitzer. Remember the Maine...
What's your alternative solution?The bottom line - is the bottom line, Its about being able to maximise advertising and minimise costs.
News is not actually about news - Its about what sells, for example what is going to get more people looking (and advertising money):
Sports celeb A shags cheerleaders
or
Local council is going to build parking lot(after knocking down aged care centre (not that anybody would have investigated this as its not cost effective).
The whole model of "news" is broken we cant have impartial investigative news while it is sponsored by advertising dollars as it is forced cater to the lowest common denominator.
I don't have one unfortunately... All my alternatives are flawed to a greater of lesser degree.
In Australia the government paid for (not run) TV stations are left leaning as most of the staff in the Media are unionised. They are probably the most balanced of all the TV stations as there are commissions and review boards making sure that if their reporting is not balanced the station is reprimanded.
Possibly for TV a moratorium on advertising during news...a terrible idea as it restricts business.
Or a combination classes at school on how to critically review news and sort dross from fact and voting with your feet - switching the news off or not buying the paper and starting a letter/email campaign demanding a better quality service....pipe dream it will never happen.
What's your alternative solution?The bottom line - is the bottom line, Its about being able to maximise advertising and minimise costs.
News is not actually about news - Its about what sells, for example what is going to get more people looking (and advertising money):
Sports celeb A shags cheerleaders
or
Local council is going to build parking lot(after knocking down aged care centre (not that anybody would have investigated this as its not cost effective).
The whole model of "news" is broken we cant have impartial investigative news while it is sponsored by advertising dollars as it is forced cater to the lowest common denominator.
I don't have one unfortunately... All my alternatives are flawed to a greater of lesser degree.
In Australia the government paid for (not run) TV stations are left leaning as most of the staff in the Media are unionised. They are probably the most balanced of all the TV stations as there are commissions and review boards making sure that if their reporting is not balanced the station is reprimanded.
Possibly for TV a moratorium on advertising during news...a terrible idea as it restricts business.
Or a combination classes at school on how to critically review news and sort dross from fact and voting with your feet - switching the news off or not buying the paper and starting a letter/email campaign demanding a better quality service....pipe dream it will never happen.
I find myself in a similar boat coming from my side. I'm not happy with most of the product of our regulated media markets, and I want less regulation, but I'm not sure that will improve the quality of the news product at all. News that is paid for solely by subscribers may yield better results (kind of like Consumer Reports model), but I tend to agree with the posters who think media is already responding to the markets to a significant degree.
|
I find myself in a similar boat coming from my side. I'm not happy with most of the product of our regulated media markets, and I want less regulation, but I'm not sure that will improve the quality of the news product at all. News that is paid for solely by subscribers may yield better results (kind of like Consumer Reports model), but I tend to agree with the posters who think media is already responding to the markets to a significant degree.What's your alternative solution?The bottom line - is the bottom line, Its about being able to maximise advertising and minimise costs.
News is not actually about news - Its about what sells, for example what is going to get more people looking (and advertising money):
Sports celeb A shags cheerleaders
or
Local council is going to build parking lot(after knocking down aged care centre (not that anybody would have investigated this as its not cost effective).
The whole model of "news" is broken we cant have impartial investigative news while it is sponsored by advertising dollars as it is forced cater to the lowest common denominator.
I don't have one unfortunately... All my alternatives are flawed to a greater of lesser degree.
In Australia the government paid for (not run) TV stations are left leaning as most of the staff in the Media are unionised. They are probably the most balanced of all the TV stations as there are commissions and review boards making sure that if their reporting is not balanced the station is reprimanded.
Possibly for TV a moratorium on advertising during news...a terrible idea as it restricts business.
Or a combination classes at school on how to critically review news and sort dross from fact and voting with your feet - switching the news off or not buying the paper and starting a letter/email campaign demanding a better quality service....pipe dream it will never happen.
Did it not get deregulated in the first place and this is what started the mess? well in modern times anyway.
Controlling content was always problematic from a 1st amendment standpoint, but I hardly think not enforcing the fairness doctrine made reporters lazy and sloppy.
The current coverage of the Tuscon shooting is a fine example of many of the things that make the media so pitiful. There is non stop coverage of the shooting on every network that is basically devoid of facts. The coverage consists almost entirely of commentary, speculation, accusation, and virtually no reporting of any verified data.
The current coverage of the Tuscon shooting is a fine example of many of the things that make the media so pitiful. There is non stop coverage of the shooting on every network that is basically devoid of facts. The coverage consists almost entirely of commentary, speculation, accusation, and virtually no reporting of any verified data.
You're in league with THEM!!!!
The current coverage of the Tuscon shooting is a fine example of many of the things that make the media so pitiful. There is non stop coverage of the shooting on every network that is basically devoid of facts. The coverage consists almost entirely of commentary, speculation, accusation, and virtually no reporting of any verified data.You're in league with THEM!!!!
Ironically that's what being suggested on every major media outlet including Fox. This shooting is my fault because I'm a vocal constitutional conservative, and I have created the wrong kind of climate. What a joke.
(At least you're just kidding.)
The current coverage of the Tuscon shooting is a fine example of many of the things that make the media so pitiful. There is non stop coverage of the shooting on every network that is basically devoid of facts. The coverage consists almost entirely of commentary, speculation, accusation, and virtually no reporting of any verified data.You're in league with THEM!!!!Ironically that's what being suggested on every major media outlet including Fox. This shooting is my fault because I'm a vocal constitutional conservative, and I have created the wrong kind of climate. What a joke.
(At least you're just kidding.)
The unfortunate choice by Sarah Palin's staff(not sure about the woman herself) to portray someone who was shot there in a gun sighting is going to give her a serious black eye.
The unfortunate choice by Sarah Palin's staff(not sure about the woman herself) to portray someone who was shot there in a gun sighting is going to give her a serious black eye.The current coverage of the Tuscon shooting is a fine example of many of the things that make the media so pitiful. There is non stop coverage of the shooting on every network that is basically devoid of facts. The coverage consists almost entirely of commentary, speculation, accusation, and virtually no reporting of any verified data.You're in league with THEM!!!!Ironically that's what being suggested on every major media outlet including Fox. This shooting is my fault because I'm a vocal constitutional conservative, and I have created the wrong kind of climate. What a joke.
(At least you're just kidding.)
I actually think that's a trivial issue. Both sides talk about targeting members of the other side, and I find nothing wrong with that at all.
I liked this link that Matt posted.
Ironically that's what being suggested on every major media outlet including Fox.
With Fox it was only on their liberal shows. I watched Geraldo last night and I could have sworn I was watching MSNBC.
The unfortunate choice by Sarah Palin's staff(not sure about the woman herself) to portray someone who was shot there in a gun sighting is going to give her a serious black eye.The current coverage of the Tuscon shooting is a fine example of many of the things that make the media so pitiful. There is non stop coverage of the shooting on every network that is basically devoid of facts. The coverage consists almost entirely of commentary, speculation, accusation, and virtually no reporting of any verified data.You're in league with THEM!!!!Ironically that's what being suggested on every major media outlet including Fox. This shooting is my fault because I'm a vocal constitutional conservative, and I have created the wrong kind of climate. What a joke.
(At least you're just kidding.)
I actually think that's a trivial issue. Both sides talk about targeting members of the other side, and I find nothing wrong with that at all.
I liked this link that Matt posted.
To me, it depends on whether or not the life was lost. I'm hoping said person was not among the deceased, otherwise she's going to have a lot of explaining/apologizing to do. Threatening someone with death by sniper scope is not a good idea on either end, hopefully this ends the entire practice, even in jest.
To me, it depends on whether or not the life was lost. I'm hoping said person was not among the deceased, otherwise she's going to have a lot of explaining/apologizing to do. Threatening someone with death by sniper scope is not a good idea on either end, hopefully this ends the entire practice, even in jest.The unfortunate choice by Sarah Palin's staff(not sure about the woman herself) to portray someone who was shot there in a gun sighting is going to give her a serious black eye.The current coverage of the Tuscon shooting is a fine example of many of the things that make the media so pitiful. There is non stop coverage of the shooting on every network that is basically devoid of facts. The coverage consists almost entirely of commentary, speculation, accusation, and virtually no reporting of any verified data.You're in league with THEM!!!!Ironically that's what being suggested on every major media outlet including Fox. This shooting is my fault because I'm a vocal constitutional conservative, and I have created the wrong kind of climate. What a joke.
(At least you're just kidding.)
I actually think that's a trivial issue. Both sides talk about targeting members of the other side, and I find nothing wrong with that at all.
I liked this link that Matt posted.
She was shot either way, but the notion that speech causes violence such as the fighting words doctrine is a slippery slope by itself. There have been plenty of attempts to censor political speech already, and I'm certain that more are coming. I'm not saying that you are advocating censorship, but I believe we must be constantly vigilant against the growing idea that speech, or inanimate objects, or TV, or rap music, or whatever are responsible for initiating violence. The choice was the shooters and he should be held accountable for his choice.
I got this in an e-mail, and it made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd share.
girl leaning into the lion's cage.
Suddenly, the lion grabs her by the collar of her jacket and tries to pull her
inside to slaughter her, under the eyes of her screaming parents.
The biker jumps off his Harley, runs to the cage and hits the lion square on the
nose with a powerful punch.
Whimpering from the pain the lion jumps back letting go of the girl, and the
biker brings her to her terrified parents, who thank him endlessly. A reporter
has watched the whole event.
The reporter addressing the Harley rider says, 'Sir, this was the most gallant
and brave thing I've seen a man do in my whole life.'
The Harley rider replies, 'Why, it was nothing, really, the lion was behind
bars. I just saw this little kid in danger and acted as I felt I should.'
The reporter says, 'Well, I'll make sure this won't go unnoticed. I'm a
journalist, you know, and tomorrow's paper will have this story on the front
page... So, what do you do for a living and what political affiliation do you
have?'
The biker replies, 'I'm a U.S. Marine and a Republican.'
The journalist leaves.
The following morning the biker buys the paper to see if it indeed brings news
of his actions, and reads, on the front
page:
_______________________________
U.S. MARINE ASSAULTS AFRICAN IMMIGRANT
AND STEALS HIS LUNCH
________________________________
That pretty much sums up the media's approach to the news these days.
I got this in an e-mail, and it made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd share.
** spoiler omitted **
There is no difference between right wing and left wing press they all sex stuff up to push their agenda.
People whose leanings are left or right are going to be blinkered to their own sides hypocrisy all the while howling that the other side is being horrible and nasty.
Its a joke to watch the supporters form either side screaming past one another and not able to switch off the tv and change the drivel they are being fed.
People will naturally tend towards confirmation bias - Story A confirms what I believe and I refuse to believe story B because it challenges my world view.
The response of "I try for a balance" is bullshit. There will never be balance in news reporting and it is a myth that balance existed in the good old days.
It is interesting watching the social rifts that are being fuelled by the media and political organisations.
I dont know where it will end up but the US is not in the best shape, economically, socially, politically and its standing among other nations of the world has slipped.
Successive governments have handed China the sword of Damocles - the massive debt that is owed.
"The value of the sword Damocles is not that it falls, but rather, that it hangs."
The US needs to stop punching its self in the head and get out from under that sword. The longer it hangs the bigger and more deadly it will be if it falls.
I got this in an e-mail, and it made me think of this thread, so I thought I'd share.
** spoiler omitted **
There is no difference between right wing and left wing press they all sex stuff up to push their agenda.
People whose leanings are left or right are going to be blinkered to their own sides hypocrisy all the while howling that the other side is being horrible and nasty.
Its a joke to watch the supporters form either side screaming past one another and not able to switch off the tv and change the drivel they are being fed.
People will naturally tend towards confirmation bias - Story A confirms what I believe and I refuse to believe story B because it challenges my world view.
The response of "I try for a balance" is b@!*#@#&. There will never be balance in news reporting and it is a myth that balance existed in the good old days.
It is interesting watching the social rifts that are being fuelled by the media and political organisations.
I dont know where it will end up but the US is not in the best shape, economically, socially, politically and its standing among other nations of the world has slipped.
Successive governments have handed China the sword of Damocles - the massive debt that is owed.
"The value of the sword Damocles is not that it falls, but rather, that it hangs."
The US needs to stop punching its self in the head and get out from under that sword. The longer it hangs the bigger and more deadly it will be if it falls.
Interesting. Do we do that by cutting spending or by raising taxes or by a mix? If a mix, what ratio of spending cuts to tax increases do you see, and what spending do you cut, and whose taxes do you increase?
I think everyone in the US is taxed more than enough, and I would like to see massive spending cuts.
Interesting. Do we do that by cutting spending or by raising taxes or by a mix? If a mix, what ratio of spending cuts to tax increases do you see, and what spending do you cut, and whose taxes do you increase?
I think everyone in the US is taxed more than enough, and I would like to see massive spending cuts.
Ok how about this - You owe money to somebody that doesn't like you. You suddenly have a major crisis, and need more money to get your self out of the crisis. The person that doesn't like you says no, in fact they demand that you pay back your debts now while you are dealing with a ruinous crisis.
Your options are to tighten your belts pay what you can and find some kind of way to let them pay your debt over time, Kill the person you owe money to (good way to loose friends and not have anybody want to lend you money), Borrow from somebody else and then you have two swords of Damocles hanging over you.
Taxation is the only way you can pull your selves out of the current situation. Your government can not afford the wars it is engaged in and to run the country at the same time. So you need to borrow from China.
Use the Taxes to build infrastructure so that you manufacture your goods in the US not China. I would even use the taxes to build the infrastructure in Mexico - Cheep labour, build up an ally instead of an enemy, create jobs and stability and cut illegal immigration while making sure that Mexico has a military that will work for you when you need it.
Not only are you borrowing from China but you are teaching them to modernise both their military and manufacturing capacity. They copy and reverse engineer everything you send them even the military stuff.
The Chinese watched the US defeat the USSR in the cold war through economics, they learned the lessons and they are doing the same to you.
Even if you don't know it you are at war with China and they are winning.
If you are looking for help from the corporations, big business will go where the money is and don't expect them to have any patriotic feelings, they just want profit. I would cut taxes for small business (who are the major employers and the true engine room of a country) and raise them on big business and if BB refused to cooperate I would threaten them with nationalisation.
Not only have the Chinese got you pinned with debt they are detaching your allies. The Chinese at the moment concentrating on Africa and the Pacific, research how much money they are pouring into those countries to gain influence.
I wouldn't complain about more taxes I would complain about where the taxes are being spent.
To answer the original post:
It's not really that the media has gotten lazy. It sure appears that way, but that's not what's actually happening.
The problem begins with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle. (And, yes, the "free market," too.) With the 24 hour news cycle came the necessity to fill 24 hours worth of airtime with something to say. It also came with the necessity to get whatever is actual news out there faster, in order to get "the scoop", and thus, "the ratings."
The former leads to the development of the talking head. The latter leads to the development of the talking head from an expert giving an informed opinion - which requires time, effort, and analysis - to reactionary punditry - which is immediate, requires no thought, but allows you to fill minutes of air time with "opinion".
While this started with the networks, with the advent of the internet this has spread to cover all aspects of media. Now, newspapers and magazines - both time honored havens of well thought out journalism - are replaced with blogs and tweets, to get us the information as fast as possible.
Like anything in life, you can get things that are Good, Cheap or Quick: Pick two you want. And since the majority of consumers aren't properly educated to the value of an intelligent discussion with informed debate, the majority of consumers will pick cheap and quick.
Thus we get the media we have now.
Muckraking and yellow journalism has a longstanding history in this country, dating back to the earliest days. You're noticing it more now, but that doesn't mean it was actually any better in the past.I've been noticing growing trend over the past decade of mainstream news getting increasingly lazy and shoddy. There's been less news and more political grandstanding.
I'm not singling out any particular news agency - every news source (from Fox to CBS to MSNBC) seems to be just as bad as any other. What I do want to know is why journalism has fallen into the toilet.
I only started reading this thread, so I don't know if this gets addressed later on, but...
Muckraking doesn't mean what I assume you think it means.
Muckraking was NOT all the celebrity gossip and going through someone's dirty laundry.
Muckraking was the journalism that got Teddy Roosevelt to pass laws about making sausages or whatever it was.
The death of muckraking, I presume, is what this thread is bemoaning.
Muckraking doesn't mean what I assume you think it means.
Muckraking was NOT all the celebrity gossip and going through someone's dirty laundry.
Noun 1. muckraking - the exposure of scandal (especially about public figures)
The definition seems a lot broader than the one you're trying to cram the word into, and indeed fits nicely exactly what you claim it isn't.
Muckraking doesn't mean what I assume you think it means.
Muckraking was NOT all the celebrity gossip and going through someone's dirty laundry.Noun 1. muckraking - the exposure of scandal (especially about public figures)The definition seems a lot broader than the one you're trying to cram the word into, and indeed fits nicely exactly what you claim it isn't.
The same site that you cite says:
"To search for and expose misconduct in public life."
The next line after you the one you quote uses:
"They feared exposure of their campaign plans"
as an example.
Anyway, look up "Muckraker" in Wikipedia if you don't believe me. I don't really care about the definition oneupsmanship, but I do believe it is unfair to Upton Sinclair and all of the original muckrakers to be associated with "yellow journalism" or the TV news broadcasts of today.
EDIT: Further research reveals that British English uses the term the way that you are using it. Two peoples separated by a common language as George Bernard Shaw put it.
|
To answer the original post:
It's not really that the media has gotten lazy. It sure appears that way, but that's not what's actually happening.
The problem begins with the advent of the 24-hour news cycle. (And, yes, the "free market," too.) With the 24 hour news cycle came the necessity to fill 24 hours worth of airtime with something to say. It also came with the necessity to get whatever is actual news out there faster, in order to get "the scoop", and thus, "the ratings."
The former leads to the development of the talking head. The latter leads to the development of the talking head from an expert giving an informed opinion - which requires time, effort, and analysis - to reactionary punditry - which is immediate, requires no thought, but allows you to fill minutes of air time with "opinion".
While this started with the networks, with the advent of the internet this has spread to cover all aspects of media. Now, newspapers and magazines - both time honored havens of well thought out journalism - are replaced with blogs and tweets, to get us the information as fast as possible.
Like anything in life, you can get things that are Good, Cheap or Quick: Pick two you want. And since the majority of consumers aren't properly educated to the value of an intelligent discussion with informed debate, the majority of consumers will pick cheap and quick.
Thus we get the media we have now.
Don't forget job and salary cuts partially caused by "citizen journalists" and their blogs, websites, etc. Yeah, most not accurate but it's FREE.
EDIT: Further research reveals that British English uses the term the way that you are using it. Two peoples separated by a common language as George Bernard Shaw put it.
Quite. It reminds me of the Brit who flew to the U.S., and his reaction when the plane's captain announced, "We'll be landing momentarily."