PDA

View Full Version : The focus of the media



banana_sam
11-24-2005, 09:57 AM
I've found, to my dismay, that the media seems to focus too much on violence -- especially regarding the Iraq war. While it is important to show us the reality of the situation, I've noticed that I've been desensitized. Stories about wayward bombs destroying children's hospitals used to eat away at me, but now I'm completely unaffected. I turn on CNN, and it's always the same spread: some car bombing in Iraq, Bush visits some leader, and bird flu. At this point, I feel that the entire city of Baghdad could be leveled, and I wouldn't even flinch. What do you guys think?

ComradeSlavic
11-24-2005, 10:03 AM
I'm pretty sure that the fact that the media reports so much of the same bull**** over and over combined with the place being halfway around the world makes most people just not care. The fact is that if you aren't even affected by violent news then why would they report wimpy news which would most likely affect you even less.

banana_sam
11-24-2005, 10:10 AM
Well, ultimately reporting should not be aimed at "affecting" people, though I made that a big point in my previous post. It should be an objective observation that shows us the truth about an issue. At the moment, CNN especially, seems to be overly chummy with President Bush. Even during Katrina, when all other news organizations were pointing fingers at the man's idiocy, CNN rarely ran any sort of derogatory report. What kind of news is that?

Reality cannot be displayed with a story about Iraq, one about Bush, and one about bird flu. Too often, the media seems to omit the bigger picture and stick with what "sells". What a shame.

hba
11-24-2005, 10:44 AM
Honestly, here in America, why are we supposed to care what the f*ck happens outside the country. We're not obligated as citizens to stick our noses into every other country's business.

Bad to sound selfish, but aside from the Red Cross and charity organizations to help those affected by natural disasters and such, we shouldn't be trying to turn over a country into something that we want to it to look like. Who are we to change their upbringing?

Akazukin
11-24-2005, 11:01 AM
I'll take 'media' as motion pictures. Television's sole purpose is for entertainment. Although it's now as effective as newspapers, you dont want to see a guy standing there and read you the news. You want to see some actions.

Like what banana said, it "sells" - media news is also a form of business. If the television only boardcast long and mono-tone news, advertisers will have no confidence on it. Their business will face difficulties.

Since the production of newspaper are cheaper, we can expect to get more solid news from the papers. A writer can work alone and has no need for electronic equipments.

A person with basic knowledge will benefit more from media boardcast. Media news also appeals to the laziness in us. We just sit down and turn on the TV. Is it a correct way to show our concern towards the world?

I would say the media business are not to be blamed, unless you pay for the News media like the way you pay for newspapers. If media are really that effective and accurate, why do we still buy newspapers? the Media is only like a graphic add-on. Its an optional plug in for your general knowledge.

duff_man
11-24-2005, 01:07 PM
To me television media is a waste of time. They are just talking heads pretty much sighting their opinions on the people that are watching the program. That is why I try to get most of my information off the internet, on a site such as Yahoo! since you dont have to deal with the fact that their trying to change you to their cause.

Also television and the newspaper are going to keep doing that, sporting what sells. After all in the end everybody is motivated by money. I don't care how much a saint you think you are.

han_han
11-24-2005, 01:07 PM
I'll take 'media' as motion pictures. Television's sole purpose is for entertainment. Although it's now as effective as newspapers, you dont want to see a guy standing there and read you the news. You want to see some actions.

Like what banana said, it "sells" - media news is also a form of business. If the television only boardcast long and mono-tone news, advertisers will have no confidence on it. Their business will face difficulties.

Since the production of newspaper are cheaper, we can expect to get more solid news from the papers. A writer can work alone and has no need for electronic equipments.

A person with basic knowledge will benefit more from media boardcast. Media news also appeals to the laziness in us. We just sit down and turn on the TV. Is it a correct way to show our concern towards the world?

I would say the media business are not to be blamed, unless you pay for the News media like the way you pay for newspapers. If media are really that effective and accurate, why do we still buy newspapers? the Media is only like a graphic add-on. Its an optional plug in for your general knowledge.
I agree. What the media shows us is what we, as the general population, would like to see. Although few would admit it, we'd much rather see violent and serious situations rather than boring and mild situations. We are entertained by excitement and bored by inactivity. Somewhere along the line, violence is just more "fun." The new generation seems to be very oriented on violence as well. A lot of kids these days are playing games that have to do with violence and severe situations. To be in a severe situation is exciting, and exciting things sell. Therefore, it wouldn't be too absurd to make a conjecture that the media, which is entertainment, would do this for ratings.

Many forms of publication control the general population; by affecting general knowledge you affect the way they think. What if they were showing these "bad" things so that we'd see the world as a bad place and work harder towards making it better? After all, it would work if the general population was influenced to think that the world is a horrible place. They'd take action against the bad things or at least start a chain of actions leading to the final action that corrects the "bad" thing on the news.

EyeOfFire
11-24-2005, 02:38 PM
It's the whole theory of the monkeysphere, not your being desensetised.

http://www.pointlesswasteoftime.com/monkeysphere.html - go there. I'm not in the mood to explain it.

Basically, you couldn't care less about the city of baghdad being leveled because it doesn't affect you. None of the bombings affect you, none of the people that die are in your monkeysphere. Stories that the news portrayed no longer impact you because you've seen them all before - the Baghdad situation is simply turning from a new exiting development to something that's been going on for a while that we've all seen before. The only time you'd care about other people is if the situation is new or exiting or even just different. The current Bagdhad situation is turning from different to monotonous - it has nothing to do with your being desensitised