New new election thread

[Good Old Neon]

EDIT: But I agree that the press has totally dropped the ball on a lot of things. I was talking to someone today about how they ( particularly television) don't do their job anymore. Not really looking for the truth. You see more biased screaming heads than experts on there

 

Yeah, mainstream news coverage and reporting has devolved further into sport, largely free of substance, but heavy on the spectacle.

[bjorn_skurj]

At this point in time, insofar as campaign and candidate coverage is concerned, I cannot help but think the scribes responsible for bringing us said coverage are all bi-polar and/or schizophrenic.

That's SUPPOSED to be a closely guarded injury secret. Some newsrooms tried to combat it by pumping in fluoxetine mist during the working hours. Results were inconclusive.

[LouisvilleGreg]

This is from today's front page in the local Richmond daily. It's been tossed around alot here for well over a year. Read into it what you will, Greg

 

 

 

Obama leaning toward VP Kaine?

Sources say the governor may be a top vice-presidential prospect

 

By JEFF E. SCHAPIRO

TIMES-DISPATCH STAFF WRITER

Gov. Timothy M. Kaine declined today to issue a "Shermanesque" statement that he would turn down Sen. Barack Obama

[MattZ]

Media's job is to sell newpapers and ads on TV. I gave up thinking that their job was to do anything other than that a long time ago. In an ideal world, the marketplace would demand balanced, appropriate and impartial reporting. I don't believe that's what the market demands. I know we have argued about this ad nauseum and I don't want to open the can of worms again. But I don't think the media has dropped the ball on anything. Yellow journalism and its ilk sells. End of story.

 

The media is not here to protect us. They are here to make money. It's the way it goes. These are not charitable organizations.

[Good Old Neon]

Media's job is to sell newpapers and ads on TV. I gave up thinking that their job was to do anything other than that a long time ago. In an ideal world, the marketplace would demand balanced, appropriate and impartial reporting. I don't believe that's what the market demands. I know we have argued about this ad nauseum and I don't want to open the can of worms again. But I don't think the media has dropped the ball on anything. Yellow journalism and its ilk sells. End of story.

 

The media is not here to protect us. They are here to make money. It's the way it goes. These are not charitable organizations.

 

True, and tragically, if it is indeed true that a healthy democracy relies on and informed public, and the public is no longer informed by the media, who, traditionally, at least sort of acted as the informer, well, what does that say w/r/t the future of our democracy

[MattZ]

True, and tragically, if it is indeed true that a healthy democracy relies on and informed public, and the public is no longer informed by the media, who, traditionally, at least sort of acted as the informer, well, what does that say w/r/t the future of our democracy

[bjorn_skurj]

Yeah, but I think the difference between us (correct me if I am wrong) is that I don't blame the media and it sounds like you do. If the marketplace (ie, the public) demanded better coverage of what is "important," we'd get it. If the media could sell more newspapers by reporting on "real issues," they'd do it. Or they'd certainly be incentivized to. In other words, I think the system "works." We are getting exactly what we want. The problem is us.

I am inclined to agree with this. And, as there is a dearth of political leadership, there is a dearth of media/journalistic leadership as well. We don't have a Cronkite anymore, a widely trusted journalist or institution with the moral authority to get people to change their minds about something. The mediaverse has become so fragmented that no matter what your preconceptions, there is a source to cater to your skew.

[MattZ]

I am inclined to agree with this. And, as there is a dearth of political leadership, there is a dearth of media/journalistic leadership as well. We don't have a Cronkite anymore, a widely trusted journalist or institution with the moral authority to get people to change their minds about something. The mediaverse has become so fragmented that no matter what your preconceptions, there is a source to cater to your skew.

 

Maybe I am just an old fashioned pure capitalist, but I think the market settles all these issues. The Cronkites of the world are out there, but we don't want them. Or not enough of us do. Until we become a country that wants solid unbiased reporting, we won't get it. We are a country that will only watch a female anchor without grey hair or wrinkles. The data proves this.

 

We get exactly what we demand.

[Good Old Neon]

Yeah, but I think the difference between us (correct me if I am wrong) is that I don't blame the media and it sounds like you do. If the marketplace (ie, the public) demanded better coverage of what is "important," we'd get it. If the media could sell more newspapers by reporting on "real issues," they'd do it. Or they'd certainly be incentivized to. In other words, I think the system "works." We are getting exactly what we want. The problem is us.

 

I agree for the most part

[Beltmann]

Yeah, but I think the difference between us (correct me if I am wrong) is that I don't blame the media and it sounds like you do. If the marketplace (ie, the public) demanded better coverage of what is "important," we'd get it. If the media could sell more newspapers by reporting on "real issues," they'd do it. Or they'd certainly be incentivized to. In other words, I think the system "works." We are getting exactly what we want. The problem is us.

Good post, as always. My question, though, is how did the public become so disinterested in real journalism? To what degree has the media helped condition us to prefer fluff, propaganda, and opinionated blowhards? To what degree is the media responsible for persuading us to care about trivial matters? I don't know the answers.

[mfwahl]

Yeah, but I think the difference between us (correct me if I am wrong) is that I don't blame the media and it sounds like you do. If the marketplace (ie, the public) demanded better coverage of what is "important," we'd get it. If the media could sell more newspapers by reporting on "real issues," they'd do it. Or they'd certainly be incentivized to. In other words, I think the system "works." We are getting exactly what we want. The problem is us.

I agree that if we demanded better coverage, we'd get it. With all the sources of information these days, it seems like hands-on news digesters are getting their information from, at least partly, outside the mainstream media, while passive news fans are stuck with organizations and publications that are settling for the lowest common denominator. It sucks. I work at a newspaper and I'm watching it slowly get worse. More celebrity gossip, less funds to send reporters overseas. Veteran reporters are being bought out so that younger reporters who "get" the future of journalism (read inexperienced) can take over. But it is hard to blame the media. Newspapers and television didn't really have competition in years past. Besides letters to the editor and cancelled subscriptions, all they needed to respond to was their journalistic standards. Plus, increased stress on the bottomline and the fact that media outlets are owned by conglomerates involved in business other than the news, has an effect on reporting. I'm rambling now and forget if I had a point. Carry on

[MattZ]

Good post, as always. My question, though, is how did the public become so disinterested in real journalism? To what degree has the media helped condition us to prefer fluff, propaganda, and opinionated blowhards? To what degree is the media responsible for persuading us to care about trivial matters? I don't know the answers.

 

Yes, fair point (as always). But at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that the media should be indifferent to what they give us since their goal is simply to sell the most newspapers possible. At the least, they aren't incentivized to condition us. Now, whether they do or don't, I have no idea. I suppose it is possible that fluff is addictive, like cigarettes or sugar, and they continue to feed it to us. I never thought about it that way, but maybe you are on to something. And maybe they are incentivized to give us to fluff. No answers here either.

[gogo]

And maybe they are incentivized to give us to fluff.

I suspect that this is the main issue, this is the incentive to feed us fluff:

media outlets are owned by conglomerates involved in business other than the news

[Beltmann]

The incentive for conditioning the public could be that fluff and commentary is easier, faster, and cheaper to produce than real journalism. If the networks can convince us to prefer the cheapest product, that maximizes profit.

[Good Old Neon]

Yes, fair point (as always). But at the end of the day, I think we can all agree that the media should be indifferent to what they give us since their goal is simply to sell the most newspapers possible. At the least, they aren't incentivized to condition us. Now, whether they do or don't, I have no idea. I suppose it is possible that fluff is addictive, like cigarettes or sugar, and they continue to feed it to us. I never thought about it that way, but maybe you are on to something. And maybe they are incentivized to give us to fluff. No answers here either.

 

 

My guess is that the root cause lies somewhere between here:

 

The Psychology of Advertising

 

http://etext.virginia.edu/etcbin/toccer-ne...p;division=div1

 

and here

[JUDE]

I blame Murphy Brown.

[MattZ]

I suspect that this is the main issue, this is the incentive to feed us fluff (media conglomerates):

 

I suppose it's possible. But that would mean that media conglomerates, who don't want us to get the real news, insist on feeding us fluff through newspapers so that we become addicted to fluff and ignore the bad news that's out there about the very media conglomerates.

 

It's a bit too 1984/conspiracy theorist for me -- there are still other ways of getting your information (as Treehugger said, on the internet, public TV, NPR, etc.) if we want it. I think it could be that the issue is that there is no such thing as unbiased and people know exactly what they are getting (ie, fluff) and want it.

 

Feeling like your vote doesn't count, or struggling to pay the bills, or knowing your kids can't afford college or [insert real life situation] could make a very rational person throw his/her hands up and not give a flying f*ck about Obama's position on FISA. And just want to be entertained. I can understand that.

 

Interesting, and scary to think about. It is also unclear to me that things are really that different than they ever were. We really have no clue how much (or little) we've ever gotten through the media.

 

The incentive for conditioning the public could be that fluff and commentary is easier, faster, and cheaper to produce than real journalism. If the networks can convince us to prefer the cheapest product, that maximizes profit.

 

Agreed.

[fatheadfred]

The incentive for conditioning the public could be that fluff and commentary is easier, faster, and cheaper to produce than real journalism. If the networks can convince us to prefer the cheapest product, that maximizes profit.

 

Then how do you explain O'Reilly's paycheck and middle of the road reporting? I overheard him today on talk radio saying he stood up for both parties and would go to bat for either that are misrepresented. I really believe him, pffft.

[gogo]

It is also unclear to me that things are really that different than they ever were. We really have no clue how much (or little) we've ever gotten through the media.

 

J. Fred Muggs (b. March 14, 1952, French Cameroon) is a chimpanzee that was the mascot for NBC's Today Show from 1953 to 1957.

 

The show debuted in 1952, with amiable host Dave Garroway. The show was in trouble initially; the addition of J. Fred Muggs boosted ratings and helped win advertisers. Muggs, dressed like a baby in diapers, first appeared on the show on January 28, 1953, and became a regular feature on February 3, 1953.

 

In the 1950s, the Russian newspaper, Izvestia, described J. Fred Muggs, as "a symbol of the American way of life", and said, "Muggs is necessary in order that the average American should not look into reports on rising taxes, and decreasing pay, but rather laugh at the funny mug of a chimpanzee."

[Beltmann]

That chimp (and Garroway) were in the movie Quiz Show--a movie that, among other things, pointedly attacks how money (the bottom line) has warped the national discourse.

[Good Old Neon]

The incentive for conditioning the public could be that fluff and commentary is easier, faster, and cheaper to produce than real journalism. If the networks can convince us to prefer the cheapest product, that maximizes profit.

 

Or, perhaps we are simply wired to prefer fluff

[MattZ]

 

Wow. I never knew that bit about the chimp and NBC -- thanks for posting.

 

In the end, my signature below speaks volumes on this (thanks Jay Farrar). I really believe it. We do a lot of anesthetizing. All of us. Not that I can blame us. Oftentimes I'd rather watch a baseball game. Or drink a beer. Wow, that's depressing. I wonder if it isn't just human nature. I am glad that I get to talk about it here with some smart folks, though. Makes it better somehow.

[bjorn_skurj]

I blame Murphy Brown.

I blame Ronald Reagan.

[Beltmann]

As humans, we seem to be programmed to seek out pleasurable activities vs. those that require hard work, effort and sacrifice - pain. I think advertisers, the media, etc, have tapped into and exploited that desire quite wonderfully, unfortunately, in most cases, contrary to our benefit.

Yeah, I agree. I think that's similar to what Matt called an anesthetic, and what Huxley called soma. By design or not, the end result is a dangerous kind of complacency.

[Tweedling]

I blame Ronald Reagan.

How dare you!