Quote:
Originally Posted by ARTelevision
The entire story and, even more, the images in question are published because they are great entertainment, particularly for the demographic groups that enjoy this type of thing enough to pay for it to be included in so much popular entertainment media content. Bloodlust and an infatuation with evil are some of the more predictable aspects of human psychology.
As for attempts to discuss contemporary media outlets as ever being motivated by a sense of personal, social, or cultural responsibility, they do appear as quite naive or simply motivated by urges of denial.
If there are some aspects of this situation novel enough to merit additional words, I would contribute to the discussion by saying it would be helpful if terms such as “rights, freedoms, free expression, and freedom of the press” were more generally regarded as operative only in contexts of personal, social, and cultural responsibility.
|
I am often naive and occasionally resort to denial, but in my lifetime the role of the news has not always been infotainment. The news was produced at a loss, and satisfied the licensure requirement of providing a community service. News didn't become a profit center until relatively recently.
Horrific images were shown during the Walter Cronkite era of televised news, but never for salacious appeal and advertising dollars. NBC could have taken a similar high road by discussing the Cho material, rather than giving him a final audience.