shakran

the public perception of what we do is honestly so skewed as to make it impossible for the average person to make an informed statement about the state of the media.

In your comment you made the assertion that we over-report some stuff, while leaving others by the wayside. Who do you think drives that decision? That's right, you the public. I'd frankly love to routinely spend 30 minutes sitting a candidate down and grilling his ass on the actual issues rather than just running 5 second soundbytes saying bullshit like "don't mess with texas." Unfortunately, no one would watch. Several months ago Diane Sawyer sat W down and asked him some hard questions about what he had done to Iraq. It was an excellent interview, but when the ratings came in, the reality shows had kicked its ass.

The public, by and large, does not want to be informed by the media. In fact, the public does not want to be informed at all. They'd rather watch a rerun of Big Brother than a new 60 Minutes.

Frankly I wish that didn't matter. Maybe if we made news available more consistantly, people would discover what a good thing it is and watch it instead of that episode of COPS for the 20th time. Unfortunately, the nightly newscast is no longer the prestige-earning loss-leader for the TV station that it used to be. Management has discovered they can make money off of a newscast, so now profit drives the news business.

Where I get annoyed is when people blame the journalists for the situation. It's really not our fault. Would you blame the soldiers for starting the Iraq war? Hopefully not. The reason TV newscasts aren't as informative as they could be is not because of the journalists, but because the execs listen to you the public, and every time they try to add more real news, the public rejects it.

Look at where most of the REALLY good news programs are scheduled - McLaughlin Group, Face the Nation, Meet the Press, etc. They're scheduled on Sunday morning, when most people are in church! If they scheduled these programs during prime time, they'd lose money because people would tune them out in favor of a sitcom or, more likely, a reality show.

Twin Cities Public Television tried to do a hard news show several years ago. It was excellent, and it really went in depth in the issues that were facing us at the time. It also tanked in the ratings because no one would watch it.

I guess I just get annoyed that people refuse to watch real news when it's offered, then turn around and blame the journalists for not offering real news. It's not our fault - we don't make programming decisions anyway - it's yours.