Hilarious how the media leads us around by our noses
 

Every couple weeks it's something new, it was Syria, then Ukraine, Flight MH370, then Gaza, back to Ukraine, Flight MH17, Ferguson Missouri, ISIS, Ebola - everybody runs to their forums and news site comments threads suddenly experts on terrorism, virology, criminal law, Middle Eastern history, aviation and whatever else they were totally ignorant about the day before the story breaks hammering out posts and comments like the world needs to listen to their opinion because of course they've now read Wikipedia and a good 20 minutes reading Wikipedia is easily equal to a PhD. The far right wackjobs and the bleeding heart liberals show up to blame it all on the other side and the conspiracy kooks blame it on the bankers and the powers that be. The story from last week now all forgotten, who cares if they ever find out what happened to Flight MH370 there's a guy in NYC who rode the subway and went bowling with Ebola didn't you hear?!?!

or more importantly some dipshit sports figure beat his woman down or some dipshit actor got high and wrecked the car :2 cents:

That's the way things work, when something fucks up, they say don't worry about it, just deny it and next week, something worse will happen and they will forget about it.

It's called the news cycle. It really hasn't changed in the past forty years.

There is a full out war going on in Ukraine from what I hear, but it's not even in our news.

It has changed in the past 40 years, technology changed how news is covered and how people consume it, first it was cable television with CNN with around the clock news, then the Internet. If I recall the network evening news programs with Walter Cronkite, Huntley and Brinkley, Frank Reynolds were only 30 minutes long, with commercials there was probably 22 minutes of news coverage.

people are in such desperate need for relevance to their lives that even if they don't have any serious problems they latch on to invented ones. The media is just giving them what they want.

whether its acting out as an alarmist, a kook or a cynical douchebag it's all stems from the same need for self importance.

News used to be a small part of a network's programming but a pretty big expense to the network in reporters, anchors etc. it was in the interest of keeping people informed, they made more money from I Love Lucy than they made from The Six O'clock News.

Now we have Media Companies where we get our "news" who's main purpose is to sell advertising time, not inform the public.

"Hey guys all we need is an endless stream of crises to keep people scared and always watching the tv and we'll all be rich!"

And it's been working.

Now we have most of the "news" media in the US owned by a small handful of companies who's upper management have also decided that they can shape public opinion through their outlets to fit their own political ideologies.

Dan Rather once said in an interview that what's happened to the "news" is the management of these media companies realized it was much cheaper to bring pundits in to a studio to explain a story (with the spin appropriate to the media outlet's leaning) than it was to send reporters out into the field to dig and question and actually investigate.

If someone would start a No Bullshit No Spin news outlet without commentary only a dry telling of the known facts I would watch that exclusively and to hell with the rest, as it is now you have to watch them all to try to ascertain where the truth actually lies, because if you watch only one you're getting more spin than news and may end up owning a Volt.

actually, it's the other way around- we lead the media around by their noses. If we were all still interested in mh370 or syria or wtfever, then rest assured that story would stay above the fold. The simple fact is ratings show that we lose interest after about a week or so (that's the news cycle rochard referred to), so stories drop off and are replaced by newer ones.

human nature.

I dated a TV news anchor for 2 years. You are mistaken unfortunately. there are so many factors that go into what you see on television news. A small factor is informing the people of what's really going on.

where did I mention anything about informing people about what's going on? because I didn't.

in fact, that was exactly not my point. My point was a story stays pertinent as long as views stay strong, which sell more ads, which is what news agencies are after.

which is why the media replaces stories when we lose interest, they lose revenue.

you really think I think the media is here to inform? lolz. If this weren't gfy, I be insulted.

When I go to a party and somebody QoS something about Ebola, Obama, etc, I ask who really gives a fuck. Then ask them how their kids are doing and how real shit is going for them.

It has evolved. But at the same time we tend to focus on one thing at a time. Right now it's Eolba. Next week it will be something different.

CNN is notorious for this - they drill down one subject and debate it to death.

The media is concerned with it's own power, via it's influence. The media cares more about the government and what sponsors want then what the people want. Sponsors are beholden to shareholders. You probably think that sponsors only care about what the customer wants too right? lol

People didn't want to hear about mh370 or syria for the 10+ days it was shoved down our throats. The media pushed that because of the government. The media flexes it's muscle by throwing people into an Ebola scare. The people don't want that, they're manipulated into it by miseducation and propaganda, just like the ISIS BS.

Revenue isn't media's only concern. When it's reported that NBC (general electric) paid no taxes, things are put into perspective.

:thumbsup

i sure hope you are not trying to convince me of this nonsense. :1orglaugh

I couldn't care less if you fall for this silliness but please, don't try to get me to buy into that crap.

Most stuff of real global relevance isn't in your news.