The news today...

[EuroSand]

I hate that the news think that it's more important to cover crackpots like Chris Crocker (http://www.youtube.com/results?search_query=chris+crocker+news&search=Search), Paris Hilton getting out of jail (http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0) (hooray for Mika Brzezinski there!) and Britney Spears instead of focusing on REAL and IMPORTANT news.

Ok, I understand that E! News covers this kind of stuff (because E! News is about celebrity stuff and gossip), but ABC, Fox and MSNBC? Good grief!

Ticks me off to no end.

If this is the news, then the world is more decadent than we think it is. Kind of like what this (http://www.jibjab.com/originals/what_we_call_the_news) animation over at Jibjab.com says about the news.


What are your stands/thoughts on the news and what it chooses to headline?

[Zavi]

As much as I hate my Social Studies teacher, he's right on some points. If you control the media, you control the country--a statement relating to dictatorship. I'm just focusing on the media of my country, the U.S., but the intelligence of our media reflects the intelligence of the stereotypical American. A lot of us are more intelligent than that, and a lot aren't. It usually depends on what you read and who you follow. The mainstream media, or outside sources?

Personally, I get my news from Wii News, provided by the Associated Press. I'm not sure if it's balanced and "worthy" news or not, but I think it is. There are stories from around the world, and you can choose not to read the Paris Hilton/OJ crap anyway. I get the rest of my news from the local news channel which usually covers crap, unless it's a feature or something. I haven't been exposed to many sources or news, so my judgment might be skewed.

Mainstream media sucks. It probably always will suck. There will always be people who rely on the mainstream media for their news, and those who choose to seek further enlightenment. I'd like to be more informed about the world, and if a source is readily available to me I'll utilize it. I don't think there are enough people willing to protest what's on the mainstream news, so they'll continue to report on whatever gets the most ratings.

[joanne_SC]

i feel exactly the same way about celebrity gossip, half of its all bull anyway. and alot of us care about our real lives as opposed to the things you mentioned (such as paris hilton on crack)

look who really gives a damn whether jessica simpson got another nose job? like really?

[kaitco]

I know I will probably sound like an elitist saying this, but I love the fact that I barely know anything about celebrity gossip. I wear my ignorance of Hollywood couples and celebrity drama like a badge of honor. Not only do I not know anything about that stuff, I could not possibly care.

Most of the news I get comes from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk) because it presents a very different image of my own country. By reading the BBC, I have paradoxically learned more about why, as an American, I do the things I do and think the way I think. It is absolutely fascinating to have a news medium where celebrity "news" is contained to a small link at the bottom of the page and should my curiosity pique at any of the titles, the information is readily available. I do know that apparently Britney Spears' comeback, or whatever, was a bit of a flop, but I know this because I saw a single link and said to myself "Hmm...I kind of liked Britney way back in high school. What's she up to now?" The information was not shoved down my throat as a front page article nor was it set above news about the war in Iraq and plane crashes in Thailand.

They are not infallible (they are currently spotlighting OJ's problems), but few media venues these days even give the option to find relevant articles without sifting through lines and lines about celebrity marriages or illegitimate pregnancies. As Zavi states, mainstream media will probably always "suck" because in the end, it is simply ratings and profits that matter, not good journalism and keeping the people informed. It really is a shame. Perhaps I should start my own newspaper and call it "None of That Other Bull" and print the things that actually make an impact on all our lives...:)

[EuroSand]

Zavi, check my "Paris Hilton getting out of jail" link up in my first post. There are people actually protesting this that work for those networks.

It is true that if you control the media you control the country... but by this do you mean disinformation or distortion of news? or (like I think it is) the news actaully being a cover-up for some important political stuff that might be in the country's best of interest to know.

[Doc Doofus]

Punish the news media. Don't watch it. Turn the channel. It really does hurt them. Cable news channels generally get such small ratings at any particular time of day that just a few people consistently turning the channel whenever news subject X comes on will have an effect on their news programming decisions. During peak hours, they often get about 100,000 viewers. Depriving them of just one viewer during non-peak hours can have some impact. Multiply that by a few more disgusted people, and you can easily take away a few share points.

[Night Revenant]

Meh, this is why I watch CBC news with Peter Mansbridge. There's nary a word about American celebrities being retards and running over people and the caster actually speaks clearly and never goes into "his opinion" about things. ABC recently ticked me off with 20/20, I mean..pssht, "respected investigative" show trashing a rival news show and station with their tripe. That's classy.

On a more larger scale, I used to be in media studies so I have a good handle on why people report these stories. Here we go, my condensed notes from my two years of journalism: "Spotlight the useless news, overrun tragic news and shimmy over the useful news.", this is coupled with "Your opinion means absolutely squat, any reporter or newcaster who speaks in a biased tone or says "in their opinion" had either a crap education or they are paid enough to do it."

I had a very cynical professor, but he speaks the truth. We were told to do stories that would matter to our primary audience, and to make it current, fresh, make it "new". But media isn't just controlled by politics, it's also controlled by the viewers. The number of viewers on a certain section of the news is rated and, of course, that news will try to incorporate more of that into their broadcast so they won't lose a large number of people watching them and also to coax them into watching more.

[BusterBrown]

You know, I think I'm going to stop myself before I even start on this subject, because if I don't I'll be here all night, ranting and raving. :steam: This is easily one of the things that ticks me off the most. *shakes head*

Anyway, the jibjab flick is awesome. :anime: Perfect satire!!

[Reindeer911_SC]

Managed news? Media bias? Naaaaaah! :dumbfunny

[Zavi]

It is true that if you control the media you control the country... but by this do you mean disinformation or distortion of news? or (like I think it is) the news actaully being a cover-up for some important political stuff that might be in the country's best of interest to know.

What I mean by that is mainstream media has some similarities:

-They want girls to be thin (not exactly on the news, but maybe)
-They only care about celebrity gossip
-Anything outside our country doesn't matter
-They feed us news like we're a bunch of nimrods looking for the first story about sex.

...and we have a country populated with girls who need ot be thin, people that only care about celeb gossip and nothing outside their country, and are absolute dunces.

The people who control the media now are making people reflect what they show.

[romyhorse]

I know I will probably sound like an elitist saying this, but I love the fact that I barely know anything about celebrity gossip. I wear my ignorance of Hollywood couples and celebrity drama like a badge of honor. Not only do I not know anything about that stuff, I could not possibly care.

Most of the news I get comes from the BBC (http://news.bbc.co.uk) because it presents a very different image of my own country. By reading the BBC, I have paradoxically learned more about why, as an American, I do the things I do and think the way I think. It is absolutely fascinating to have a news medium where celebrity "news" is contained to a small link at the bottom of the page and should my curiosity pique at any of the titles, the information is readily available. I do know that apparently Britney Spears' comeback, or whatever, was a bit of a flop, but I know this because I saw a single link and said to myself "Hmm...I kind of liked Britney way back in high school. What's she up to now?" The information was not shoved down my throat as a front page article nor was it set above news about the war in Iraq and plane crashes in Thailand.

They are not infallible (they are currently spotlighting OJ's problems), but few media venues these days even give the option to find relevant articles without sifting through lines and lines about celebrity marriages or illegitimate pregnancies. As Zavi states, mainstream media will probably always "suck" because in the end, it is simply ratings and profits that matter, not good journalism and keeping the people informed. It really is a shame. Perhaps I should start my own newspaper and call it "None of That Other Bull" and print the things that actually make an impact on all our lives...:)

I hate all the celeb gossip as well, the BBC is good but Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/) is better, no celeb gossip there!

[Chelleypie]

I don't even watch Today anymore. I watch M*A*S*H reruns. At least that way I ask to be entertained.

[davious]

Punish the news media. Don't watch it. Turn the channel. It really does hurt them. Cable news channels generally get such small ratings at any particular time of day that just a few people consistently turning the channel whenever news subject X comes on will have an effect on their news programming decisions. During peak hours, they often get about 100,000 viewers. Depriving them of just one viewer during non-peak hours can have some impact. Multiply that by a few more disgusted people, and you can easily take away a few share points.

exactly. The only reason that media organizations are focusing on Britney Spears, Lindsay Lohan, etc is because thats what the public seems to be watching. They are news organizations, but they are corporations first. Their job is to make money, first and foremost. If the American public stops watching their news program because of its content, they will change the content. They are only giving us what they think we want. If they think we want something else, they will adapt their programming to match.

[Tjaames]

I agree! CNN and MSNBC, the channels that you used to be able to rely on, have given up on giving what matters. I am guilty of reading a tabloid or two a month, when I am in a long car ride, or on a plane, but I want to know whats going on in the world. The world has so many problems right now, and I hear about Lindsay Lohan or a cow getting away from the zoo.

[EuroSand]

I hate all the celeb gossip as well, the BBC is good but Channel 4 News (http://www.channel4.com/news/) is better, no celeb gossip there!

Hmmm.... too bad mexican standard cable gets the american networks and not the european ones. .... I think you've just convinced me to spend the extra 20 dlls a month on expanding my cable contract.

[sabrown100]

Here in the UK I can give a whole list of media that give you almost nothing about celebrities:

-BBC News (TV and Online)
-Channel 4 News
-Channel 5 News

-The Guardian (The one that right-ringers always laugh at)
-The Telegraph
-The Times
-The Independent (I think)

[Mark2512]

Its great in Britain because we have the BBC. Its a world recognised organisation thats only aim is to broadcast news. Right now the BBC news is even doing stories criticising the BBC! They are completely impartial and unbiased. This is all down to their public service carter which means they are a corportation paid for through our taxes (TV license) and not through advertisement, which means firstly NO ADVERTISEMENT BREAKS WOOP and also that they are not only out to get money because they get their money no matter how many people watch. I would also say at least 30-50% of the stories they do are from all round the word. They are doing a great job at the moment (as is ITV news) in showing the plight of the people of Zimbabwe.

Ive had the misfortune of watching American news. They try and make the news way too exciting, graphics wizzing everywhere, sound effects and such like. Thats because all this stimulates peoples attention and so makes them want to watch it more, and since there are dozens of american news networks they have to do this to compete.

Therefore im glad that terrestrial British TV has only 5 channels (two of which are BBC). I think if anything they complement each other. For example BBC news has International News on at 6 o'clock and local news on at 6:30, where as ITV news (their main 'rivals') have Local first at 6 then international news at 6:30. Channel 4 then has its news on at 7pm so they never conflict or compete for a certain time slot. I for example am not too interested in local news so will switch from BBC at 6:30 and watch ITVs world news. Also BBC has Natasha Kaplinsky :D sexy and sophisticated. Its certainly worth paying the £135 a year.

For a funny take on American news watch the South Park episode 'Quest for ratings' where the guys make their own news channel called 'Sexy Action News!'. heres a link. (http://www.allabout-sp.net/?p=season8/811)

[DorkyGemo]

Jeez, I remember when Paris Hilton lost her Dog. THAT made the top news story in my area. I watch BBC World news. Not only do I get to find out whats happening around the world, I get to learn whats going on in my own country that I do not know about P:

I think the news needs to focus more on REAL news. Not celebrities or those pointless stories that just waste time. And this includes newspapers, too.

[Annique]

Celebrity news is okay with me, as long as it's genuine and not pulled out of a greedy paparazzo's butt. I prefer real news though.

[Reindeer911_SC]

They are only giving us what they think we want.

And therein lies the problem. The news media picks and chooses what information that we have access to based upon what they say we want. Managed news... the ironic thing is that often the people who scream "biased media" the loudest are all to often also their greatest supporters because simply telling the facts as they are may not be quite as profitable.

[Cassadaga]

Yeah.. there's alot more important news to be reported on than celebrity gossip. But it's all anyone seems to care about.


Although I do love Chris Crocker :)

[kittentits]

I read news from different countries, just to get a different (and hopefully more balanced) view. I will admit that I still get very much of a west-centric view. American news and the BBC are admittedly different, yet I wouldn't say BBC is all that great. After all, it is controlled by the government to a great extent and you will get your news with a pro-government spin.

I like my own native country's news media mainly because they're not allowed to have affiliations with any political party. It's nigh impossible to get completely unbiased news, but that's as close as I've seen it get. The media isn't nearly as hysterical as the US or UK media, and I quite like it that way.

[redwing_SC]

One: If you don't like what you think of as shallow news, don't watch it or read it. Explore a bit. There are plenty of serious news sources at your newsstand and on the Internet. Instead of complaining about the news you don't like, go spend your time with news you think is important.

Two: Think for yourself. What are you gaining by asking for others' opinions on things like "the news?"

[edejan]

I've given up watching the mainstream news programs. They are just "infotainment" amd while I don't object to celebrity news, I think of it as dessert rather than the meal. There are news programs on cable and public access TV which actually focus on the news of the day and several that discuss and explore political issues daily in detail and depth. Look at Christian Amampour's specials on religion and politics, the Lehrer report on public TV, Wolf Blitzer, Lou Dobbs and several others. I keep news on most of the day and sure some of it is reflective of the moderator's bias but if you watch enough, you can sift through to the actual facts. It's true the mainstream media is focused only on profits and also on disinformation. If TV can keep us focused on sports and celebrities, then we won't really have a clue what the government is pulling without getting much attention. Reliable and indepth news is worth searching for.

[EuroSand]

One: If you don't like what you think of as shallow news, don't watch it or read it. Explore a bit. There are plenty of serious news sources at your newsstand and on the Internet. Instead of complaining about the news you don't like, go spend your time with news you think is important.

Two: Think for yourself. What are you gaining by asking for others' opinions on things like "the news?"

Ok, here are a couple of answers to your hostile message redwing.

One: I do read newspapers, internet news and other news sources on tv. I don't know why you're complaining about me setting up a debate on "infotainment" as edejan calls it (get word by the way edejan, i'll have to add that to my personal dictionary).

Two: I do think for myself, as others here. I'm interested in opinions because it's interesting to actually know what other people think about the evolution of serious news to the crap we get today. I gain the knowledge of others opinions on certain subjects which interest me, instead of sticking to a biased self opinion on the subject, which in this case is "infotainment" disguised as meaningful news.

[georgiababe]

Personally, I like celebrity gossip. Is it necessarily true? No. Is it important? No. But who says that everything that we do has to be mentally challenging? If I want to indulge in a good magazine about LaLaLand, then I will. It doesn't make me shallow or superficial - I just enjoy a bit of mindless drivel once in a while.

That being said, I don't think that entertainment news has a place on stations like CNN, BBC, CBC etc. If I want celebrity gossip, I'll tune in to E!. If I want coverage about current events, politics and medical breakthroughs, I will watch CBC. The two shouldn't mix.

Although I think that anything about Paris Hilton should never be aired. Ever.