The Press

[Dr. Shoe]

Following on from the Landmark article in the NYT, Benno linked to a very interesting, genius and thought provoking article:

I read this and it made me think of this post. God bless Charlie Brooker

http://gu.com/p/2fmcd

This set me thinking. The goal of every newspaper is to sell more papers, that's it, nothing else. The reason why they want to sell more papers is so that they can charge for advertising, but to make the proposition more attractive to advertisers, they fill it with bad news. the reason for this is to put us in such a bad mood that we immediately go out and buy the wares that the advertisers have to offer, just so we feel good about ourselves.

I don't know if the press invented the term "retail therapy" but they certainly promote it!

[BadWriter]

Hi Dr. Shoe, I think I agree with you up to the point that the news media's focus is to make money and they tend to publish stories that are of a sensationalistic nature rather than purely newsworthy. I'm not, however, ready to jump on the idea that they do it to put me in a bad mood. I'm also not ready to say you're completely incorrect on that matter. The sadder part is that you're complaining about this in your media. You see, I log on to BBC every morning to see what the real story is. Our news is so heavily filtered and biased over here that I have no confidence in the content. I earlier checked what was actually going on in Iran on BBC because I needed a second view to the one I read. Good post. Very thought provoking. Chuck

[Dr. Shoe]

Apart from "celebrity" gossip, when was the last time you ever read some good news? Other than a light hearted story I mean?

[Foxyheels]

Doc you are so right, MrsF refuses to watch the news for that very reason

[benno]

Thanks for reposting my link Dr. It's a really important, yet light hearted, piece of journalism.

[Heelster]

Hi Dr. Shoe,

I think I agree with you up to the point that the news media's focus is to make money and they tend to publish stories that are of a sensationalistic nature rather than purely newsworthy. I'm not, however, ready to jump on the idea that they do it to put me in a bad mood. I'm also not ready to say you're completely incorrect on that matter.

The sadder part is that you're complaining about this in your media. You see, I log on to BBC every morning to see what the real story is. Our news is so heavily filtered and biased over here that I have no confidence in the content.

I earlier checked what was actually going on in Iran on BBC because I needed a second view to the one I read. Good post. Very thought provoking.

Chuck

It's interesting that in a society which supposedly promotes free press, there are so many who scream bias, and in most cases, with due cause. Cross checking becomes a standard process along with attempting to glean the facts, and not the opinionated presentation. There are times I wonder if the comments are screened too, but I doubt as much.

It's also interesting to determine what sections of a newspaper are the higher priority. As an example, I can't get the Wall Street Journal newspaper locally at all, and USAToday has limited distribution locally.

When I travel, I find that the USAToday at the local fast food places are a good gage. around here, the sports page is always shredded, or gone. Then, the front page, and next, the Money section with Fashion/Living always left behind. In larger business districts, the Money section and Sports section are 50/50 but the sports section is always a wreck.

It's amazing to me how many people I come into contact regularly that have no clue what's going on in the world, and frankly don't give a 'rodents behind'. When they do hear something like the 'men wearing heels' article(s), it's as though the world if falling apart, and society is crumbling.

Impulse buying on Bad News isn't as common as I think some would believe unless the local pro football team loses, and the locals drink more beer while whining.

[Dr. Shoe]

The problem with the media as a whole is it seems to ration the information. It's as if it is heavily edited and censored. I happen to know that the "coalition forces" in Iraq lost a lot of armour to the Iraqi anti-tank defences including Challenger and Abrams tanks. The APVs seemed to be nearly as vulnerable as soft skinned vehicles. None of this was reported in the media, anywhere apart from in Iraq where it was taken as propagandist rantings of a madman. Had the Iraqi Republican Guard been as professional, well-equipped and well trained as our boys the story would have been very different. Look at Afghanistan. I'm betting that the media only reports a fraction of what actually happens.