Tilted Forum Project Discussion Community - View Single Post

jb2000 · 07-26-2004, 09:27 AM

Rather is highlighting what has been fact for some time now, and that is that the TV news job has been to tell us what we want to hear.

I don't think that it is only now that the media is paying attention to what we want.

Despite all conspiracy theories about conservatives owning all the networks or liberals running all the newsrooms, I don't think either has as much influence as the simple desire to get people to repeatedly tune in to your news show. If exposing presidential scandals gets viewers, they'll run it. If putting on raging neo-con screaming heads gets viewers, they'll run them. If repeated investigative reports on bad companies get viewers, they'll run them.

The bug is that now, with such a polarized environment, media news isn't sure what to do to get people to watch their show. If they run a bit on the President's troubles, they lose viewers offended by the attack on the president. If they ignore such an issue, they lose viewers that see the show as being a government patsy.

Heck, right now, a feel-good story about the fire-department rescueing a cat from a tree would probably get assaulted. One side would be complaining about the mayor getting preferential exposure while the other complains about the endorsement of such egregious government waste. That might sound silly, but it seems we are headed that way.

Why is Rather scared to run an article? Not because he's going to lose sleep because someone didn't like his bit. Reporters have always had to deal with this. But because he knows that for every nasty-gram he gets, an advertiser gets one too, threatening the sponsorship, and with such division, there's a good chance the advertiser will be sypathetic to the viewer's complaints.

07-26-2004, 09:27 AM	#9 (permalink)
jb2000 Crazy Location: Allen, TX	Rather is highlighting what has been fact for some time now, and that is that the TV news job has been to tell us what we want to hear. I don't think that it is only now that the media is paying attention to what we want. Despite all conspiracy theories about conservatives owning all the networks or liberals running all the newsrooms, I don't think either has as much influence as the simple desire to get people to repeatedly tune in to your news show. If exposing presidential scandals gets viewers, they'll run it. If putting on raging neo-con screaming heads gets viewers, they'll run them. If repeated investigative reports on bad companies get viewers, they'll run them. The bug is that now, with such a polarized environment, media news isn't sure what to do to get people to watch their show. If they run a bit on the President's troubles, they lose viewers offended by the attack on the president. If they ignore such an issue, they lose viewers that see the show as being a government patsy. Heck, right now, a feel-good story about the fire-department rescueing a cat from a tree would probably get assaulted. One side would be complaining about the mayor getting preferential exposure while the other complains about the endorsement of such egregious government waste. That might sound silly, but it seems we are headed that way. Why is Rather scared to run an article? Not because he's going to lose sleep because someone didn't like his bit. Reporters have always had to deal with this. But because he knows that for every nasty-gram he gets, an advertiser gets one too, threatening the sponsorship, and with such division, there's a good chance the advertiser will be sypathetic to the viewer's complaints. __________________ "Don't tell me we're so blind we cannot see that this is my land! I can't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. And this is your land, you can't close your eyes to this hypocracy. Yes this is my land, I won't pretend that it's nothing to do with me. 'Cause this is our land, we can't close our eyes to the things we don't wanna see." - DTH