The media needs to rethink how much time they spend on stories.
July 2, 2009 10:51am CST
With Michael Jackson's death and Gov. Sanford thinking below the belt....the media has forgot about some big news items going on. Like what is going on in Iran. Are they still protesting? Has the government cracked down on them? Or how about the fact that the cap and trade bill was voted on without being read? North Korea launch another test missle? How about how the wars are going? How about the economy and what our elected officals are up to as far as their jobs are concerned.There are a lot of things going on more important than Michael Jackson's death. yes it is tragic. Yes he was a talented man. But in the grand scope of things it is small potatoes to to some of stuff going on in this country and the world right now. As for Sanford....do we really need a rehash all the time the dirty deals of his affairs? Let us knwo when he gets kicked out of office and have done with it. What do you think? Is the media focusing on the wrong things? Are more important things getting too little media coverage?
4 people like this
2 Jul 09
A good topic. Though i am not into journlism i would say that any newspaper or form of media focuses more towards business than providing the news based info. its all about selling...so they create the top stories that would be bought by the mass. Even if it is as small as a drop they know to make that drop into an ocean and sell it off... Maybe the wrong news or the unimoortnat ones leaving out on a lot of important or currrent issues..yet its all about making the public react and increase their sales.
• United States
2 Jul 09
Bill O'Reilly has been on vacation, so I've been watching his show all week to see who fills in. Sometimes you'll catch a good one. Anyway, last night it was Juan Williams (he deserves his own show, but I digress) and he interviewed Bernie Goldberg about this topic. I don't know if you or anyone else caught it... I have to agree with Bernie here. I hate borrowing someone else's words, but I cannot put it any better than Goldberg did, paraphrased: "There's an infinitely thin line between American celebrity and actual news. America's media today hasn't only crossed the line, they've obliterated it!" American media is too celebrity obsessed. And I know that Obama supporters hate hearing it, but the media (even anti-Obama media!) sacrificed what little credibility they had to make the man out to be a celebrity. And when it comes to actual, REAL celebrities, the media provides balls-to-the-wall friggin' all-out coverage that crosses redundant and ventures into the insanity category. Some pretty big celebrities have been coming out and claiming that Michael Jackson coverage has been racist. And while I in no way agree with that assessment (I still remember Kurt Cobain's coverage), I can see why they think the media is covering Jackson differently than, say, David Carradine: Jackson was a gargantuan celebrity, so his coverage has reflected that! Even still, no matter how disgusted I get at the media, I have to remind myself that if people didn't tune in to watch it (the ratings are always high with Jackson-like stories), they wouldn't be covering it to the point that stories like Iran get swallowed up. As far as Sanford goes, that's a little different in my mind. Three major networks had sold out to go completely political and completely liberal. While the networks might not be the MOST popular, they're still watched by millions respectively. The fact that Sanford could be labeled a family values Republican means that they would grill him well-done regardless. Other networks have no excuse.