Metanet Forums

A friend and I were having a conversation the other day about the purpose (or lack of purpose) of American media (i.e. newspapers, CNN, etc., the news) in today's society. It seemed to us that it's very redundant--like, in America, the media was originally created (almost by accident) as a sort of extra-governmental check--it kept the public informed and stuff. And as far as we could remember, media that was outside of governmental control was pretty much unprecedented in the 1770's. Now, though, most media outlets are so far left or right that they might as well be government rags. Besides, they seem to be on the whole more interested in weight loss and who's pregnant than in how many people died yesterday in one of the numerous wars going on.

So where did it go wrong? People like Walter Cronkite did real reporting back in the day. Reporters were at Normandy. Vietnam. But now the quality of the news is so bad, I almost wonder if there's any point in having it any longer. Most people get their news off the internet anyway, where they can choose what they read about, and thus dodge the odd story about a kid who may or may not be stuck in a balloon.

I had an article where a freelance reporter interviewed several prominent anchors and some local producers about the general quality of the news today, and the big-time guys all said there was no problem, move along, while the local people tended to nod vigorously, but not say anything because they didn't want to lose their jobs. It had great quotes from the famous news anchors--they came off as hypocritic idiots. So it doesn't look like anything's going to change if they don't even acknowledge it needs to. Also, one Florida producer pointed out that the news really started going downhill with the introduction of Nielsen ratings. When the stations started having to get better ratings than their counterparts, they stopped talking about actual news, which I thought was quite true. Unfortunately, the article's on a private, password-protected database, so I can't post it here.

Anyway, thoughts? Anyone agree with me? Spin off discussions? I think there's definitely a problem, but I don't see it going anywhere.


PS: I believe in free speech for the most part, by the way. Just not stupid speech.
PPS: Anyone absolutely love the movie Anchorman, in a way very relevant to this post?

I think that a bunch of this information is ridiculous and marijuana-induced.

The media is not a government rag. The media as you describe is entertainment. News, as traditionally viewed, is entertainment. These are not sources of information, and you do not cite the 5 O'Clock News when you are writing a research paper. Entertainment.

News sucks. I don't like how it shows videos of Anna Nicole Smith in a clown costume for a video instead of showing the latest updates on Darfur.

SlappyMcGee wrote:The media as you describe is entertainment. News, as traditionally viewed, is entertainment. These are not sources of information, and you do not cite the 5 O'Clock News when you are writing a research paper. Entertainment.

The reason this works so well is because most people do not realize this. They think it's valuable information, information important for them to know. It's entertainment without their knowing.

SlappyMcGee wrote:I think that a bunch of this information is ridiculous and marijuana-induced.

The media is not a government rag. The media as you describe is entertainment. News, as traditionally viewed, is entertainment. These are not sources of information, and you do not cite the 5 O'Clock News when you are writing a research paper. Entertainment.

Nah. Well, yes, I guess. But my point is that it shouldn't be entertainment--if the news isn't news any more, where's the news? "Sources of information?" They should be. Not for "research papers" maybe, but definitely for the average person who wants to learn a bit about what happened in Afghanistan yesterday. There're other forms of entertainment. So, basically, you're agreeing with me: media as it is has degenerated into "entertainment," which I see as an obvious problem.

And I think your marijuana charges are ridiculous. So there.

flagmyidol wrote:for the average person who wants to learn a bit about what happened in Afghanistan yesterday.

If they were truly interested, it's just a search away.

flagmyidol wrote: So, basically, you're agreeing with me: media as it is has degenerated into "entertainment," which I see as an obvious problem.

No, news was never anything more than Entertainment. Which is the point I'm making. Especially with the internet of today, information is literally at your fingertips. The news has never had the intention to completely inform, because that wouldn't be interesting.

SlappyMcGee wrote:No, news was never anything more than Entertainment. Which is the point I'm making. Especially with the internet of today, information is literally at your fingertips. The news has never had the intention to completely inform, because that wouldn't be interesting.

Wwwwwwwwwhat?
In any country with a disfavorable government, the first and best step forward is spreading information, and news media is exactly the way to go about that.
Once internal issues are dealt with and the people become happy enough to value entertainment over news, then the (now much less needed) news enterprise gives way to entertainment, and entertainment that claims itself news (and might actually believe itself) reigns supreme, as we have it now.
But to say that news has never been more than entertainment, or (as I think can be reasonably inferred from your post) to say that it cannot have non-entertainment value, is so laughably and demonstrably false that I'm going to assume you were making a poor attempt at humor through sarcasm.

I'm curious at the distinction you make between to entertain and catch attention and genuinely inform. News media may have had some useful value in the past, but it was entirely incidental to itself. The entire idea of news media was not invented to keep everybody knowledgeable about important subjects, because few people actually care to know everything about important subjects. The purpose of the "news" has and always will be to entertain people in a way that they determine as educational. Has there ever been a proper use of this media to inform, to incite rebellion as you propose? Certainly. But there are also classic rock radio stations that occasionally let people know that Dick Dale drew inspiration from the Egyptians. Doesn't mean nothin', homes.

I kinda disagree with you, Slaps. You see, I do actually see the News, and I do it not only as entertainment, but as a source of contemporary knowledge, such as Political stuff, that otherwise I wouldn't really feel that appealing. The News does give knowledge in a more appealing, compact and fast form. Conclusion? Knowledge through entertainment.

Also, I'm making this point by the News things that show here in Portugal. I do get pissed whenever they start it with "OMG CRISTIANO RONALDO HAS FUCKED NEREIDA AGAIN" and then they'll go through some political scandals everybody knows AAAAAAAND then they'll go through all the possible football games, not giving importance to any of the other sports. We don't even get F1 for free anymore! Switching channels? Hah, yeah, right. The others are worse.

I'm not saying it's always like this, by the way. Just sometimes.

SlappyMcGee wrote:

flagmyidol wrote: So, basically, you're agreeing with me: media as it is has degenerated into "entertainment," which I see as an obvious problem.

No, news was never anything more than Entertainment. Which is the point I'm making. Especially with the internet of today, information is literally at your fingertips. The news has never had the intention to completely inform, because that wouldn't be interesting.

I think it definitely was, especially if only before the dawn of long-distance communication, when people still needed physical papers and word-of-mouth to hear about current events. And news does not necessarily equal media. I'm not saying there was never any entertainment in the papers back in the 1800s, just that there was also real news.

Sort of what Tsukatu said. And like Techno said, it doesn't matter as much now that we have the internet.

flagmyidol wrote:Sort of what Tsukatu said. And like Techno said, it doesn't matter as much now that we have the internet.

Yeah, but thats still no excuse for not reporting on whats happening around the world.
Is it that showing news of soldiers fighting is not 'entertainment' and therefore is not shown?

I think that news broadcasters know that if they want more people to watch the news, then they need to make it interesting. For some people, like myself, factual and informative news is interesting. But many people would rather watch some drama series than the news, so the broadcasters try make the news appealing to them too by including entertaining content.

At least they haven't stooped to the level of celebrity gossip yet [in NZ].


I remember this a while ago: http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Ww2bFPiI8qg
Its an anchor refusing to lead the news with Paris Hilton.

People buy Newsweek more than the National Enquirer. When the assumption that what you're talking about is serious is a major part of the reason that people choose to view your program or read your publication, it's not unreasonable to expect you to actually be serious.

And that's why Fox News is considered harmful.

scythe33 wrote:People buy Newsweek more than the National Enquirer. When the assumption that what you're talking about is serious is a major part of the reason that people choose to view your program or read your publication, it's not unreasonable to expect you to actually be serious.

And that's why Fox News is considered harmful.

Seriousness does not imply that something is unentertaining, or not intended to entertain. The reason you pay to go to a Stephen Hawking lecture that you could get the facts of on the internet or in a book is that you are paying to have them delivered in an entertaining way.

I personally get my news from the ONION.

SlappyMcGee wrote:I'm curious at the distinction you make between to entertain and catch attention and genuinely inform. News media may have had some useful value in the past, but it was entirely incidental to itself. The entire idea of news media was not invented to keep everybody knowledgeable about important subjects, because few people actually care to know everything about important subjects. The purpose of the "news" has and always will be to entertain people in a way that they determine as educational. Has there ever been a proper use of this media to inform, to incite rebellion as you propose? Certainly. But there are also classic rock radio stations that occasionally let people know that Dick Dale drew inspiration from the Egyptians. Doesn't mean nothin', homes.

Okay, random comparison from off the top of my head:
Let's say I, Tsukatu, pop onto E!'s webpage to see more videos of people calling Kanye West a retard. What Kanye did was a recent event, and I'm being given information, but it's clearly for entertainment purposes.
Let's say I then go to my newsfeeds and read about what NASA is planning to do with its budget for the year. This is separate from the world of entertainment and is informative, but I'm still only interested in informing myself; it's still entertainment to me.
Now let's say I work for the government as a foreign policy advisor and want to know what political changes are happening in the area I'm supposed to know about.
Let's say I live in Turkey and am unaware that my government tortures the shit out of people regularly for no reason until I pick up an underground newspaper.
Or let's say I live in Gaza and want to find out how many of my relatives died today so I can pass on the information to my family.

Oh, lookie, some non-entertainment purposes for news. That wasn't difficult.

Tsukatu wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:I'm curious at the distinction you make between to entertain and catch attention and genuinely inform. News media may have had some useful value in the past, but it was entirely incidental to itself. The entire idea of news media was not invented to keep everybody knowledgeable about important subjects, because few people actually care to know everything about important subjects. The purpose of the "news" has and always will be to entertain people in a way that they determine as educational. Has there ever been a proper use of this media to inform, to incite rebellion as you propose? Certainly. But there are also classic rock radio stations that occasionally let people know that Dick Dale drew inspiration from the Egyptians. Doesn't mean nothin', homes.

Okay, random comparison from off the top of my head:
Let's say I, Tsukatu, pop onto E!'s webpage to see more videos of people calling Kanye West a retard. What Kanye did was a recent event, and I'm being given information, but it's clearly for entertainment purposes.
Let's say I then go to my newsfeeds and read about what NASA is planning to do with its budget for the year. This is separate from the world of entertainment and is informative, but I'm still only interested in informing myself; it's still entertainment to me.
Now let's say I work for the government as a foreign policy advisor and want to know what political changes are happening in the area I'm supposed to know about.
Let's say I live in Turkey and am unaware that my government tortures the shit out of people regularly for no reason until I pick up an underground newspaper.
Or let's say I live in Gaza and want to find out how many of my relatives died today so I can pass on the information to my family.

Oh, lookie, some non-entertainment purposes for news. That wasn't difficult.

Except that you went from news ABOUT entertainment to stuff that isn't available on most newsfeeds. Show me a non-internet media source that lets me know, as a Gaza citizen, how many of my relatives died.

I was quite proud of The Austin American-Statesman today; there was a shooting at Fort Hood, a military base very near me, and they actually put it on the front page, with an appropriate amount of coverage. Surprising, considering that a few weeks ago when 160 people died in Baghdad, and 700 more were injured, it got just a small box on the front, and a medium article within.

SlappyMcGee wrote:Except that you went from news ABOUT entertainment to stuff that isn't available on most newsfeeds.

No, the only example I gave that was explicitly about entertainment was the Kanye West thing, and that was only to have an obvious case of American news lacking any non-entertainment purpose.
I was still even with you when I admitted that I want to know about NASA's budget purely because it interests me, so that form of news could still be considered entertainment.

But you've just lumped foreign policy advisors, victims of an oppressed government, and civilians forced to live in a warzone in with people who only want to know things for their entertainment value. These things are neither about entertainment, nor are they entertaining to read. On top of that, if you know how to use Google, they're trivial to find, so don't give me this "isn't available on most newsfeeds" bullshit.

SlappyMcGee wrote:Show me a non-internet media source that lets me know, as a Gaza citizen, how many of my relatives died.

I'm afraid I'd be hard-pressed to do that, because it sounds an awful lot like I'd have to be in Gaza to do that.
But you're crazy if you think no Palestinian has ever thought to report on the injustices he sees to other Palestinians. I'm surprised we're still talking about this.

flagmyidol wrote:I was quite proud of The Austin American-Statesman today; there was a shooting at Fort Hood, a military base very near me, and they actually put it on the front page, with an appropriate amount of coverage. Surprising, considering that a few weeks ago when 160 people died in Baghdad, and 700 more were injured, it got just a small box on the front, and a medium article within.

That newspaper is your city newspaper. I assume Fort Hood is close to the city if it is close to your house. Those other killings were in Baghdad, which is much further away from home. All this meaning, the closer the thing happens to the people reporting it, the more it will be reported. The strange thing is, that I heard this on the news and I live in Chile. But as everyone knows Chile is a pretty recent democracy, Pinochet being the previous dictator, and maybe the media hasn't gone bad yet. Or whatever.

Tsukatu wrote:

SlappyMcGee wrote:No, news was never anything more than Entertainment. Which is the point I'm making. Especially with the internet of today, information is literally at your fingertips. The news has never had the intention to completely inform, because that wouldn't be interesting.

Wwwwwwwwwhat?
In any country with a disfavorable government, the first and best step forward is spreading information, and news media is exactly the way to go about that.

I have to disagree with you.

In internet news websites, when you click anything happened to someone, I'm 90% sure that there will be a link to a photo gallery showing naked photos/ sex scandal of that celebrity/person.

Tsukatu, I think that you consider the Internet an element of News media, which I'm specifically not including because I absolutely agree with you, that people actively can find shit on the internet just to stay informed. There are no advertisement quotas on the internet. But I firmly believe that traditional news media (which I would say is the News on Television, Newspapers, radio-news) are specifically driven by an effort to entertain rather than to inform.

SlappyMcGee wrote:I firmly believe that traditional news media (which I would say is the News on Television, Newspapers, radio-news) are specifically driven by an effort to entertain rather than to inform.

I can only agree with that in the case that the country is more or less stable. Revolutionary radio broadcasts and underground newspapers are fine examples of news that seeks to inform without giving a flying fuck about your consumer interests. They seek only to inform, and they don't have a manager analyzing ratings and giving them ads to read on air or print among the articles.
In politically stable countries, yes, it would be extremely rare to find this sort of news. But in my understanding, politically stable countries are not in the majority in the world.

Aldaric wrote:

flagmyidol wrote:I was quite proud of The Austin American-Statesman today; there was a shooting at Fort Hood, a military base very near me, and they actually put it on the front page, with an appropriate amount of coverage. Surprising, considering that a few weeks ago when 160 people died in Baghdad, and 700 more were injured, it got just a small box on the front, and a medium article within.

That newspaper is your city newspaper. I assume Fort Hood is close to the city if it is close to your house. Those other killings were in Baghdad, which is much further away from home. All this meaning, the closer the thing happens to the people reporting it, the more it will be reported. The strange thing is, that I heard this on the news and I live in Chile. But as everyone knows Chile is a pretty recent democracy, Pinochet being the previous dictator, and maybe the media hasn't gone bad yet. Or whatever.

160 people dying in Baghdad was the largest terrorist attack in nearly three years. 16 people died at Fort Hood. (Of course, the killer was a major in the army with known Muslim sympathies who had wanted a discharge for years, and had even given a pro-Muslim rant at a staff meeting; in short, he was the kind of person who should not be in our military. But hey.)

SlappyMcGee wrote:Tsukatu, I think that you consider the Internet an element of News media, which I'm specifically not including because I absolutely agree with you, that people actively can find shit on the internet just to stay informed. There are no advertisement quotas on the internet. But I firmly believe that traditional news media (which I would say is the News on Television, Newspapers, radio-news) are specifically driven by an effort to entertain rather than to inform.

From what I've listened to of NPR, it might be an exception to this, mostly. But again, I agree with you--that was the argument of my first post. But the news wasn't always inane. You could almost characterize the thirteen colonies in the mid-eighteenth century as an "underground movement," as Suki said, and the people got real news then, out of necessity. So I'm not sure what you mean when you say that news media has always been "entertainment."

SlappyMcGee wrote:But I firmly believe that traditional news media (which I would say is the News on Television, Newspapers, radio-news) are specifically driven by an effort to entertain rather than to inform.

I disagree, on the grounds that people buy newspapers for more than just entertainment. There are folks who are interested in politics, world affairs, and other serious business- they're out there, sitting in their green drawing rooms, puffing away on pipes- and the media will supply to this market.
To some degree, it's everyone. Everybody wants to know if their taxes are going to rise, if their politicians are breaking promises, if their soldiers are dying overseas. And the papers will provide. Entertainment is not a necessary factor.

Your statement seems to be a generalisation, and that's fine, but I don't think it leads to any meaningful criticism of the media because serious, quality news sources exist, in adequate supply, for those who want it. Certainly, a larger proportion of modern media focuses on celebrity, self-improvement and day-to-day issues, but that is where the majority of the demand lies. This leads only to criticism of people themselves, not the news media. The media reflects modern values far more than it shapes them.

So if news is being supplied in the quantity and quality demanded, and both serious and trivial news items are available, then what exactly is the problem? People seem to think that every damn print and visual media needs to have a psychotic drive to provide stories about death and destruction (bonus points if it occurs in a far-flung country you can't pronouce, let alone locate on a map).
The Woman's Weekly can run stories about celebrity and cooking and that's okay. In the great collective generalisation that is 'the media', that is the role that gossip magazines play...

flagmyidol wrote:It seemed to us that it's very redundant

...and it is not a redundant role. The role of super-responsibilitifier and uber-acountabilitator is played by other media sources, who are still doing a bang up job.

The only real potential problem with modern media is when it becomes corrupt or one-sided. And the amount of papers I can pick up today which have articles bitching about the government, or fawning over the government, usually both on the same page, show that isn't yet a concern.

flagmyidol wrote:Now, though, most media outlets are so far left or right that they might as well be government rags.

That's the beauty of it! (except the bit about government rags). I've long held that the institution holding the media accountable is other media. Don't like one paper? Pick up the other one. Or the other other one. There's ten on the rack.
You can wish for a single source to provide complete, neutral information but that's never going to happen because representation doesn't work like that. The very nature of presenting information involves 'taking sides', through selection, structuring and shaping. There's no such thing as perfectly neutral information. There are degrees of neutrality, to be sure, but again, at least one of the papers on the rack is the one that tries to be neutral, and is proud of it.

flagmyidol wrote:When the stations started having to get better ratings than their counterparts, they stopped talking about actual news

This is a popular view: that the media shouldn't be motivated by demand and money, it should provide information for information's sake. Sounds great, but consider this- what's the point of having a media that provides balanced accounts of world issues if nobody is listening? Money is the motivation, which is earnt through gaining readers and viewers, which is achieved by providing information that people want to see and hear. The demand and money are a way of showing what people still care about. The day that the media stops telling us about death, disaster and tragedy is the day we should take a hard look at ourselves, because that's where the blame lies. If you value death, disaster and tragedy, that is. Personally, I think celebrities, self-improvement and cooking are pretty damn important too. ;P