After posting
my response to a writer who thought Charlie Sheen should get more media coverage than soldiers, the war, and the recent tsunami, I received a few responses that blamed "the people" for the stories the media chooses to cover. And it is the people's fault - just not in the way you think it is.
COMMENT #1:
I think that this is, unfortunately, what you get with a ratings-based media system. More people watching leads to higher ratings, and higher ratings lead to more revenue being generated.
COMMENT #2:
The fact that fewer people would watch if the coverage were about dead soldiers says more about the audience than the news media. We love to rail against the giants, and give little consideration to the ones that feed them.
Then, this morning, I read
another post at DailyKos lambasting today's "news" that said, in part,
...after spending most of 2004 and 2005 traveling in Europe, occasionally catching the BBC or CNN International, upon returning home, I just couldn't watch the domestic versions anymore. It was embarrassing. It was painful. It was a waste of time.
People like to say the media only gives us what we ask for, but I disagree. I think the media often tells us what we want (or makes really bad assumptions about what we want or, in the case of the news, is just effing lazy and gives us paste to eat), and we respond to it. Jean Kilbourne, who for years has made it her life's work to analyze the effect of advertising on society, writes,
"Some argue that advertising simply reflects societal values rather than affecting them. Far from being a passive mirror of society, however, advertising is a pervasive medium of influence and persuasion. Its influence is cumulative, often subtle and primarily unconscious."
"But the news isn't advertising," you say. Eh. Media is media. If all major news networks started paying more attention to the war and its effects on soldiers, their families, and this country (not to mention others), that's what we would know as the big story of the day. You know what people talk about when they stand around in their cubicles or meet for drinks? What they saw on TV or read about online in the news.
While this sounds like me blaming the news, I'm not. I'm still blaming you. You say "the people" who watch the news are the ones dictating the programming, but aren't you the people? Aren't "the people" the same people who circulated a viral facebook post that criticized the networks for favoring Sheen over fallen soldiers?
If you, the people, don't like the stories the news programs are choosing, why don't you, the people, say something? It's easier now than it ever was before. All you have to do is visit the website and send an email. Look - here are some links for you so you don't even have to do any research:
MSNBC: http://www.msnbc.msn.com/...
CNN: http://www.cnn.com/...
FOX NEWS: http://www.foxnews.com/...
Bloggy complaints about the news are nice, and all, and they generate a lot of comments, but if you really want something to change, DO something, for f*@k's sake.
Unless you enjoy wearing "helpless" and like the flavor of paste, that is.
_________
*note: "What's" in the poll is supposed to say "What's 'real' news?"
LIKE IT FOR TIME