|
I have many mixed feelings about this whole issue. On the one hand, I sometimes wonder if the concern about "trivia" isn't just a totally misplaced worry, much like the old concern that kids shouldn't read comic books, but should only read important things like newspapers. I was raised in a household where there was a lot of reading of all kinds--from murder mysteries to newspapers, from political books to religion, from comics and movie magazines to great biographies--and none of it was criticized because all the rest was also read about. If people are following some of the popular silliness, but also learning things, then I don't think there is a problem. It is when they are just stupid and thoughtless, that there is a threat--but then again, they usually don't watch Nancy Grace either; they listen to rock and roll or rap, follow "American Idol" or whatever it is, and read nothing. Equally, I am often more offended by the replies to the "trivial media" issue, the ones that oppose it, than I am by the original stories. When they complain that "missing white bitches" (actually raped and murdered white women and girls) are "taking up too much air time" that presumably should go to males, or as even on this thread, where Anna Nicole Smith, who according to all acounts is a nice person who loved her dead child and is devastated, is called "an ignorant whore," that is pretty creepy. Who is the problem?
Also, I don't entirely agree with the presumed connection between things, that thinks that if you just get rid of all the obsessively-covered stories, that that just means that there will be "real news" again, although the statement was not made that directly on this thread. Maybe they will then cover labor strikes, but only to tell us whether or not "the strikers were violent," or if they "admit" that they will have to give up benefits. Maybe they will cover the criticisms that Democrats have made against Bush's policies, but only to "warn" us that the Democrats are doing some "partisan posturing" "to get votes." I don't believe the coverage will be anything other than second-rate, regardless, because of the deeper, general problem. I think TV news started dying during the 1980s, with the appearance of several things: 1) the murder of the Fairness Doctrine and ownership rules, by the Reagan Administration; 2) the treatment of the news department as a moneymaker that would have to bring in a profit, rather than, as previous, being excempt from TV ratings; 3) the rise of the "star anchor," such as--whether anybody likes it or not, Dan Rather, who started to command so much money, that whole staffs of writers, researchers, and other reporters, were let go, to pay for the now-competing "star anchor" salaries. I remember Walter Cronkite, years ago, complaining about this very thing; that whole departments were now being cut, because of the outrageous anchor salaries. Things started going downhill then.
I also think that some of the stories covered so obsessively by the media are not disgusting or stupid by themselves, and actually had a real news basis, if only they would be covered intelligently, but they are instead so exploited and sensationalized, that any "social issue" value they might have had, is lost. It isn't always the subject matter that is stupid, but the corporate-media treatment; and of course, that will continue, no matter what the topic is.
|
Printer-friendly format
Email this thread to a friend
Bookmark this thread
(1000+ posts)
Send PM |
Profile |
Ignore
