Is it over yet?

Liberty Call U.S. ^ | Feb 26, 2007 | Charles Bloomer

[Gunner9mm]

For the past two weeks we have been inundated with idiotic stories masquerading as news. The saturation coverage of the soap opera fiascoes of Anna Nicole Smith and Brittney Spears has nearly drowned out any real news that has occurred. The television coverage has been excessive to the point of obscenity.

Is there really nothing else happening in the world that is newsworthy? Is the world so quiet that we must be flooded with meaningless stories about meaningless people, their meaningless lives, and the meaningless events surrounding them?

Some observers call this "tragedy TV", "soap opera news", "trash TV", or "voyeurism news". Whatever you choose to call it, it is irresponsible, even pathetic that major television news programs spend inordinate amounts of time covering these types of inconsequential and irrelevant stories at the expense of news stories of events that may actually have an impact on our lives.

[MadIvan]

P.J. O'Rourke once said why it is that journalists concentrate on inane stories - they're lazy. It's complicated to write about Iran's nuclear programme, and convey that information effectively. It's easy to talk about the dumb broad with big boobs who croaked.

Regards, Ivan

[Landru]

>ping<

This article matches-up nicely with the discussion of the other thread started by s_l.
The author of the above article asks questions about what does & doesn't constitute, "news".

...he actually *gets* it.

[Eric in the Ozarks]

P.J. was and is definitely on to something.

[KevinB]

I haven't watched TV in over five years. Highly recommended.

[Pondman88]

Baloney.

These stories fascinate us becuase they are an escape from the drudgery of our daily lives as well an escape from reality.

Do we really need to discuss Iraq, the 08 election, and global warming 24/7 ????

[atomicpossum]

Yup. OJ, Anna Nicole, kidnapped girls, Michael Jackson, little girls falling down wells-- the media likes a story that--

a) sits in one place, preferably smiling for the cameras,

b) promises a 'payoff,' either a court decision or a capture, or whatnot,

c) has a titillation factor, preferably sex, but lots of other stuff can work.

Issues? What issues? Those are hard to relate and hard to sell to viewers, who, by and large, want the news to be like American Idol-- lots of personalities, the chance to 'take sides' against other people, and, ultimately, a meaningless climax that really doesn't change their everyday lives. They certainly don't really want to have to think or learn anything.

[posterchild]

People are free to not watch. Other than a few hours/week of CNBC (Squawk Box, Kudlow, or Cramer's Mad Money) I haven't been able to tolerate any TV 'news' for a number of years. These 'news' channels must be doing something right though as they do attract an audience. I just don't want it to be me:)

[MadIvan]

Ever since I read that, I've seen the news - whether on television or papers - in that light. They're writing what is easy, what is sensational, not what requires attention to detail or complicated analysis.

Regards, Ivan

[Strutt9]

All this is part and parcel of the on-going campaign to dump down the population. Give fluff rather than hard hitting news. Keep the population dumb enough so that whatever is said in MSM will be accepted as Gold.

[Smokin' Joe]

Ceaser said to give the masses bread and circuses to keep them happy. This sort of TV is part of the circus...

[Prov3456]

No, we can continue to listen to the ANS, Britney, Oscar, and other meaningless "news" stories until something really serious happens. And then we can complain, "Why didn't Bush tell us? Why didn't Bush do something about it? Why, why, why.... waaa, waaa, waaa?"

Whether people pay attention to real current events and actual news events/stories or not does not mean those things don't happen. When will Americans wake up? Will it take another 911-or worse?

[MadIvan]

I must admit that I underestimated the power of the MSM - I thought that people were going to be switched off by the heavy handed rhetoric prior to the November 2006 election. I was wrong - it worked. The slow drip feed of poison from the MSM is still working its way through the body politic.

Regards, Ivan

[rawcatslyentist]

There's a reason for the wall to wall distraction/coverage.

[Strutt9]

I think a lot of people mis-understood the power of MSM.

[johnny7]

It's complicated to write about Iran's nuclear programme, and convey that information effectively.

Especially when they know... an ignorant voter, is a Dhimmicrat voter.

[stylin19a]

oh great...another Anna Nicole thread....

[Rob Bishop]

C'mon, if the MSM (Fox included) didn't spend 24/7 slobbering over a glorified prostitute's death, they'd have to actually report on some news. Who are we to demand that CNN, MSNBC, and FOX do their jobs?

[andy58-in-nh]

Why are we so fascinated by people like Anna and Britney, and why do they dominate that which we have come to consider "news"? The answer is blowin' in the cultural winds, and of late, the wind is coming from the general direction of the garbage dump.

As a starting premise, for all we have come to rely on it, television is not particularly well suited to news analysis and never has been. There is an institutional bias toward the visual elements of a story rather then the conceptual and historical aspects that provide what used to be called "context". More broadly speaking, TV as a medium has always militated toward the promotion of entertainment rather than information, and by this late date, "infotainment" has long since replaced hard news coverage and detailed analysis of the same. This is as true of FOX News as it is of, say, CBS, with only a difference in focus and interpretation. This is not to say that TV news cannot ever do a better job; I believe that it can, but it first requires an environment supportive of better programming.

What has happened to broadcast journalism is a reflection of what has occurred within our culture, even though at times television has acted to shape that culture as well. Who are we today? Judged solely by our fascinations, the answer is less than inspiring. Our popular "heroes" are celebrities of dubious merit and sports "stars" of often dubious character. Our public schools routinely teach dumbed-down history, if they bother to teach history at all. Our politicians, never the brightest lights or the straightest arrows, are now dimmer and dumber than ever. Our "artistic" communities have become fever swamps of depravity, intentional ignorance, purposeful provocation, and, increasingly, intolerance of traditional values and of the people who share them.

Print journalism, though less directly affected by our celebrity-worshiping culture than TV, has for its part been overwhelmed by a doctrinaire vision of the political left. All news is filtered through a prism of "progressive" preferences, bending the light that might otherwise be shed on vital matters of public interest into a rainbow of grievances and petty dislikes.

Perhaps the Internet will help to change these trends, and perhaps it's already occurring. But my sense is that it will take more than a proliferation of blogs and message boards to make the profession of journalism once again a seeker of truth rather than a purveyor of cultural rot and political pap.

[MadIvan]

I'll tell you what I think what is the most dangerous form of ignorance promoted by the MSM in both Britain and America; the mental relationship between taxes and spending is being severed. People think that the government somehow has money that doesn't come from taxpayers, that it magically appeared with the morning sunlight.

Re-learning that relationship will create difficulties.

Regards, Ivan