What makes for good or important news? Is it popularity or marketability? Are these criteria different than those in previous decades? If so, why? (Thanks to VelvetVoice for the suggestion.)

Anything that can make the news reporting agency money is considered news to them . The higher the ratings, the more money they make.

From what I see they don’t really care much about the story itself, only how they can sensationalize it to draw in viewers. The big “news” channels are the worst. (FOX News, CNN, ect.)

quote:

Originally posted by Koz:
Anything that can make the news reporting agency money is considered news to them . The higher the ratings, the more money they make.

From what I see they don’t really care much about the story itself, only how they can sensationalize it to draw in viewers. The big “news” channels are the worst. (FOX News, CNN, ect.)

-------------------------------------------------
Hi Koz:

Let's not forget about MSNBC...the absolute worst of all of the all news cable stations.

They report news like The Star or The Enquirer..and Keith Olbermann is the trash-meister of them all.

hippolips

One big item to muse about: I'm just a shade too young to remember much about the political climate during the Vietnam War. But I do remember the music, the protests, JFK's assasination. Was it Walter Cronkite and his delivery? Was it that bringing the war into our living rooms for the first time that made all that sensational?

Nowadays, I guess we are so used to seeing murder and mayhem in our own neighborhoods that the Iraq war is just another violent drop in the bucket. And I wonder about the attitude towards soldiers by those here in the US. The soldiers in Vietnam were not welcomed home with open arms, I guess the concensus was that we were too much reminded about those dark days to honor those who gave their lives for us. Will today's military find the same thing? I would like to think that we as a society will not blame them for the government mishandling of power.

With the advent of 24/7 cable stations. the need to fill air time bacame paramount. Those of us who remember early times also remember when the neational news was about 20 minutes in length, the rest commercials. So what was news then was the the core of what happened over the day. No more. Now we get all this nonsense. And if there is nothing of consequence over a week or so, we get plastered with one story. How long did the story about the missing assistant and the congressman from California run? Anyone remember their names off the top of your head? Finaly replaced by something else.

The same is true of sports: poker, darts, scrabble, monopoly tournaments. Anything to fill up the time and get sponsors.

I have pretty much quit watching TV, with the exception of some History Channel and other programs like that, and hockey. Much of my time is spent listening to classical music.

I have subscribed to a free service, "CBC News Online" which I much prefer to listening to somebody read to me what the networks choose.
Sign up page.

I can look up the items by topic and ignore the worst of the drech. Also CBC tells us via a separate e-mail which documentaries are coming up. Documentaries home page.

If those services were not available I wouldn't watch the news. During the latest spate of lunacy, it seems I could not switch the television set on without seeing Nicole Smith's dirty laundry being slobbered over by some nitwit.

I agree for the most part of what you said JR. Long gone are the days of the ½ hour news programs where an anchor sat behind a desk and read the “news”.

I am not sure when the local networks shifted to one hour long format. That was the beginning of their downfall I believe. They have to fill time, but I don’t care to hear about any celebrity’s personal life, or to see a parrot dunk a mini basketball .

(I did not see the parrot, but I heard about it on Opie & Anthony’s radio show )

I don’t watch much TV nowadays either. When I do watch television it is either The History Channel (I adore “Modern Marvels” ) a baseball game or other sporting event most of the time.

The only other shows I watch asides from 24 are mindless sitcoms, and those are recorded on the TiVo. (television on my schedule) I am a couple of weeks behind in the few shows I like as I just can’t seem to find the time or desire to watch them .

quote:

Originally posted by VelvetVoice:
One big item to muse about: I'm just a shade too young to remember much about the political climate during the Vietnam War.

Nowadays, I guess we are so used to seeing murder and mayhem in our own neighborhoods that the Iraq war is just another violent drop in the bucket. And I wonder about the attitude towards soldiers by those here in the US. The soldiers in Vietnam were not welcomed home with open arms, I guess the concensus was that we were too much reminded about those dark days to honor those who gave their lives for us. Will today's military find the same thing? I would like to think that we as a society will not blame them for the government mishandling of power.

------------------------------------------------

Hi VV:

The main difference between Viet Nam and Iraq is due to the fact that we now have an all volunteer military. We have no draft in this war.

Because of this ,we don't usually have our kids or the kids next door who are fighting and dying for us.

When it's not your kids or your neighbor's kids dying,it's pretty easy to not even think about the war.

You don't have to care if it's not your kid getting killed or maimed.

When my wife and I are out shopping or in a restaurant we never hear anyone even discussing the war.

Sad ,but true.

hippolips

P.S. We only really care when it's our ox that gets gored,otherwise it's just business as usual.

I can't remember the last time I watched TV news; it's just annoying in its superficiality.

http://news.bbc.co.uk/ has its faults, but it's a well respected and serious news site. Relevant to this discussion is the box at the bottom right of the home page - the "most read" and "most e-mailed" stories. Given a smorgasboard of news, what stories to people actually click on, and what do they want to tell others about? It's interesting - do we get the news we deserve?

quote:

Originally posted by DorianGreyed:
What makes for good or important news? Is it popularity or marketability?

Neither one. Unfortunately, there is a direct correlation between what they "market"/sell us, and what becomes popular. That is how news becomes popular. By what gets advertised, how much, where, and how long. It is no big secret that the government controls the media. Although this violates the Constitutional guarantee of a free press/news media, it has gone way beyond mere censorship, to the point of nearly absolute control.

If the Media was free, there is no doubt that they would be reporting from Iraq and around the world where the U.S. is currently occupying on a daily basis. Including places such as Guantanamo Bay. They don't because they're not allowed. They're not allowed (in my opinion) because of what it lead to during Vietnam. The American people got so sick and tired of every time they turned on the TV, there was more war and death and destruction coming into their living rooms. Not fictional, but reality. This was a large part of what lead to the mass dissent of Americans, which lead to our eventual withdrawl from Vietnam.

Going back to the original question, "Good or important news" is not what you hear on TV or the radio or even the front page of the newspaper. It's the news that they try so hard to keep quiet that is usually the best and most important of all. Don't be fooled by their "Weapons of Mass Distraction", as Robin Williams' character so eloquently put it, in "Man of the Year".

quote:

Are these criteria different than those in previous decades? If so, why? (Thanks to VelvetVoice for the suggestion.)

Yes- they're not about to make the same mistake they made during Vietnam. This time, they're doing everything they can to keep the populous pacified, and to keep the truth out of your living room.