The Media (spam-lite)

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 6:51 am

As some of you may know, I just started a new job as a live TV subtitler, working (mainly) on a news channel. I'm training at the moment, and on Sunday (or possibly Monday... not sure

) when we were practising for a few hours, I came to the conclusion that the media's prioritisation of news is just all wrong.

This was the day that we had "sensational new revelations" that Princess Diana foresaw her own death.

That was the top story for the day. In between interviews with various people on that, they just about managed to squeeze in brief updates on other news - like the fact that there were four Israeli bomb attacks on Palestine in the space of a few hours.

Is it just me, or are their priorities all wrong? Are their top stories really the stories that the majority of the public want to hear about? Any comments?

Gwalchmai · Post by **Gwalchmai** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:29 am

Originally posted by Georgi
Is it just me, or are their priorities all wrong? Are their top stories really the stories that the majority of the public want to hear about? Any comments?

Or is it that these are the top stories that the media have told the public that they want to hear about and therefore the public want to hear about these top stories more than the others so the media have to put these fluffy kind of stories at the top?

Damn these paradoxes!

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:50 am

Re: Re: The Media (spam-lite)

Originally posted by Gwalchmai
Or is it that these are the top stories that the media have told the public that they want to hear about and therefore the public want to hear about these top stories more than the others so the media have to put these fluffy kind of stories at the top? Damn these paradoxes!

But why would the media want the public to want to hear about all the mindless nonsense rather than the real news?

Bloodmist · Post by **Bloodmist** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 11:54 am

I think the fact that suicide-bombings aren't news to anyone (unfortunetly), is the reason why the media chooses to focus on something else often. This is of course wrong, but I'm sure that's how it works, and there's not really much to do about it. You should of course focus much more on the horrifying things that happens in the world, rather than some celebreties new partner.
But if it's not news, it doesn't get on the news.

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:26 pm

Originally posted by Bloodmist
But if it's not news, it doesn't get on the news.

Ok, so that doesn't explain why "OMG, Tony Blair was given a sedative when he was in hospital having electroshock therapy" the other day counted as an important news update.

To me, another suicide bombing, or whatever, is still bigger, more interesting, more relevant news than the latest gossip on the royal family/celebrity/whatever.

So IMO, a lot of stuff that isn't particularly newsworthy does get a lot of coverage. That's my whole point.

fable · Post by **fable** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 2:42 pm

Commercial media are driven by ratings. They buy the ratings data twice yearly, they analyze it carefully, and they hire specialists to interpret that data and make suggestions *for programming.* This is their first concern. Not getting advertisers--because advertisers look at the ratings, too. They flock to the stations with the best demographics. So ratings rule.

That being the case, commercial newspapers, magazines and television will always push whatever they consider the biggest attention-gathering items into their news sections. And that accounts for the extremely warped logic that declares Princess D (pause for yawns) "foresaw" her own death. No, it really isn't news; not by a long shot. But the media know her death was big news in the UK (the BBC was claiming that people were crying in streets in the US and holding services, when hardly anybody cared at all), so they figure anything about her will sell just as well.

The situation has unfortunately gotten worse in the last 10-20 years, since the communications takeover "kings" like Rupert Murdock sought to control as much media as possible across the English-speaking world. With the loosening of media ownership laws, many small and medium-sized companies were forced out of business by Murdock and others who resorted to legal tactics to harass the stations/papers they wished to buy. One result: the US once had more than 90 separate owners for major newspapers in its top 100 markets. Currently, there are 3.

frogus · Post by **frogus** » Thu Oct 23, 2003 5:13 pm

I dont think that either items are really great news.

News has to be interesting, important and unusual.

Suicide bombings in Palestine are not unusual, and Princess Diana is not interesting...

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 10:22 pm

*bump*

Originally posted by fable
Commercial media are driven by ratings. They buy the ratings data twice yearly, they analyze it carefully, and they hire specialists to interpret that data and make suggestions *for programming.* This is their first concern. Not getting advertisers--because advertisers look at the ratings, too. They flock to the stations with the best demographics. So ratings rule.

That being the case, commercial newspapers, magazines and television will always push whatever they consider the biggest attention-gathering items into their news sections.

Oh, I wouldn't dispute that they are always chasing the ratings. However, I would like to know - is there really so much demand for all this non-news? Am I in a minority in not giving a damn about some celebrity or royal scandal?

@Fable don't mention Rupert Murdoch round here... Big Brother is watching.

Maharlika · Post by **Maharlika** » Sat Nov 22, 2003 11:32 pm

Hey, Georgi...

...ever heard of FOX news?

Nice one, fable.

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 2:30 am

Re: *bump*

Originally posted by Georgi
Oh, I wouldn't dispute that they are always chasing the ratings. However, I would like to know - is there really so much demand for all this non-news? Am I in a minority in not giving a damn about some celebrity or royal scandal?
<snip>

Unfortunally - it seesm the public want such "stories" eventhough many say they don't

We have same "Problem" in Denmark, where the news of the crownprince getting engaged to some australian woman, and if filled the broadcasts from all danish based media, written, radio and television and the audience swalloed it all. Real news where like 10 minutes of a 1hour news show, and even an intiview with some fashionconsultant thingy about "Marys" clothes were more importent then anything else.

And this is after all the tabloids for over a year have written stories about this.

There is a reason why such much tabloid exists. People want it - unfortunally (never cared much for the royalties, just a big PR brand in my oppinion) - and many buy it.
Thus it is somewhat understandeble that medias give the public what they want. If they didn't want it - it would show, and the media would start loosing money.

The public controls what they watch/read/listen to, money follows the rating (advertisments and sponsors) - so if something isn't interesting, the publics wouldn't "buy" it and the media loose money.

Unfortunally it is getting to be a trend (in Denmark anyways) that the public service channels are going on the bandwagon and are all tumbeling over eachother to bring the latest tabloid about the royalties. Luckily - one can just tune thoese out and use other newssources

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 6:43 am

TV is mostly an entertainment medium, as opposed to a news medium, right? How do you think people prefer to spend their free time--concerning themselves with deadly serious issues, or concerning themselves with something more pleasurable to contemplate? It's not TV's job to decide what's good for people or give people what's good for them; it's TV's job to give people what they want--and therefore make lots of money. That determines TV's priorities.

I think that TV-dominated culture is getting dumber and suffering from attention deficit disorder more and more, and that has some effect on TV's priorities. I also think that the distribution of air time is determined by whether a topic is simple or complex and whether, with respect to each given topic, the people prefer simplicity or complexity.

For example, people tend to prefer complex stories about celebrities and simple stories about war and terrorism. Theoretically, it's possible to have simple stories about celebrities, but since people tend to be fascinated by celebrities, they prefer to dwell on celebrities at great length. By the same token, it's theoretically possible for TV to have complex stories about war and terrorism, but people prefer not to dwell on such complexities and would rather stick to short, simple stories that simply state the barest facts or paint the issues in black and white. So stories about celebrities tend to have more depth and take up more air time than stories about war or terrorism, which are mentioned (in the briefest possible way) only because, yes, we know that they're important and they cannot be ignored altogether, but we've heard enough already, thank you very much.

Beyond that, I don't know how the television industry works in the UK. Here in the U.S., it's all about brainwashing people into being better consumers. In exchange for free entertainment, people sell their souls to the devil (so to speak). People like my father complain about "bad television", but he's missing the whole point in TV's existence. On its own terms, TV is one of the most successful enterprises I've ever seen. "Mission accomplished."

Xandax · Post by **Xandax** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 8:37 am

Originally posted by VonDondu
<snip>
For example, people tend to prefer complex stories about celebrities and simple stories about war and terrorism. <snip>

Very nice stated and unfortunally - I think this is a very descripeing statement about the "masses" in "mass-media".

Could be the reason why I've all but stopped watching the news on tv, and uses the internet for 80% of my news coverage and the rest from papers.

Everything needs to be so "pop-smart" these days

Georgi · Post by **Georgi** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 9:37 pm

Originally posted by Maharlika
Hey, Georgi...

...ever heard of FOX news?

Hey, ever heard of Sky News?

Originally posted by VonDondu
TV is mostly an entertainment medium, as opposed to a news medium, right?

Sure - mostly. However, one would expect that a news channel might actually value news over entertainment. I mean, if the audience wants entertainment it has 500 other more amusing channels to watch. One would assume that if the viewer has switched on to the news channel, it's because they actually want to see the news. If they want celebrity news, there are entertainment news channels. Hell, there's probably even a royal news channel somewhere in the depths of Murdoch's evil empire.

I mean, with a dedicated news channel, why is the news such dross?

VonDondu · Post by **VonDondu** » Sun Nov 23, 2003 11:33 pm

Georgi, I wasn't sure whether you were being dead serious or lighthearted when you started this message thread, but while I stand behind my own remarks, they should be taken in a lighthearted way.

As usual, I have made a lot of assumptions that I didn't actually state in my previous message.

For example, I do believe that there are distinctions to be made between news and entertainment, but TV has blurred the line between them, and even though people turn to news channels ostensibly to hear real, important news (perhaps out of some sense of duty to themselves, their community, the high intellectual standards they set for themselves, etc.), when they turn to news channels they'd still rather hear about celebrities than war and terrorism. In other words, people are somewhat pretentious about their relationship to news, and I think that's one of the main things that distinguishes news from entertainment these days.

You, on the other hand, seem to regard news as some sort of Platonic ideal.

Honestly, I'm glad you feel that way (if that is in fact the way you feel about it) since you are in the news business, and I truly hope that you derive satisfaction and a sense of pride from your work. Don't let someone as cynical as I am about television get you down.

I wish that I could help you answer your questions. But first, perhaps we should have a little bit of background discussion. I'd like to begin with the question, what is the difference between news and entertainment? Perhaps that will shed some light on what SHOULD take precedence on a news channel, and we can take it from there. Would that be alright?