media
Submitted by motivez on 21 April, 2008 - 15:58.
Is the horrible coverage we suffer through here, the lack of hard questions, little focus on issues that matter a prime example of the market failing the people? Or is it a success of the market because the people want bullshit news instead of real substance?
It used to be that the news divisions of the television stations weren't really out to make a profit because of the way the various broadcasting companies were allowed to use the airwaves.. so they weren't forced to over hype stories, or report on a bunch of bullshit (ie: Natalee Holloway for how many months?) instead of the critical issues.. they were providing a public service, and that was that.. Though I'm not suggesting they were perfect.
But the cable news networks in particular are worried primarily with the profit of the shareholders in the company instead of whether or not they're providing the best service and quality information on important subjects that they possibly can for the American people
I think that's why you see (IMO) better reporting on some of the public funded services, IE: NPR.. because they aren't primarily worried about making a buck, so they can spend more time covering important things and having in in depth coverage on those issues, which are often times quite 'boring' for most people compared to spending an hour watching Fox or CNN or MSNBC, so if they were interested in profit, they wouldn't be making much of it.
I justify my use of 'better' by studies showing people who listened to NPR were far better informed on the facts for example, leading up to the war in Iraq than were those who spent time watching Fox or any of the other television news networks.
The television media really hyped it up and didn't really look in depth at any of the stuff coming out of the Bush Administration, and part of me has to wonder if they knew in the back of their minds that a war would be good for ratings (the old tv news adage "If it bleeds, it leads" comes to mind) and so they weren't eager to do any in depth coverage of anything that might prevent it..
I'm really not sure if you can even call some of the stations like Fox (especially), but CNN and MSNBC as well "news" .. it's more like infotainment
I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make a profit by having a television station that reports on stories however they want, but the question I have is whether or not they have any responsibility to the American people at all to ensure good, accurate reporting on critical issues.. of if their only responsibility is to cover the stories in a way that leads their shareholders to the greatest profit
If the latter (as I would imagine libertarians would argue) .. then how can you imagine a libertarian world where people need to be informed on the issues to make decisions for themselves instead of relying on government if they have no desire to? It would seem the same decision that has allowed the current degradation in quality of the news (and the profit of places like Fox in particular) precludes the existence of a society desirable to libertarians.
If they do have a responsibility, is there any way for people to hold them accountable except with their ability to change the channel?
It used to be that the news divisions of the television stations weren't really out to make a profit because of the way the various broadcasting companies were allowed to use the airwaves.. so they weren't forced to over hype stories, or report on a bunch of bullshit (ie: Natalee Holloway for how many months?) instead of the critical issues.. they were providing a public service, and that was that.. Though I'm not suggesting they were perfect.
But the cable news networks in particular are worried primarily with the profit of the shareholders in the company instead of whether or not they're providing the best service and quality information on important subjects that they possibly can for the American people
I think that's why you see (IMO) better reporting on some of the public funded services, IE: NPR.. because they aren't primarily worried about making a buck, so they can spend more time covering important things and having in in depth coverage on those issues, which are often times quite 'boring' for most people compared to spending an hour watching Fox or CNN or MSNBC, so if they were interested in profit, they wouldn't be making much of it.
I justify my use of 'better' by studies showing people who listened to NPR were far better informed on the facts for example, leading up to the war in Iraq than were those who spent time watching Fox or any of the other television news networks.
The television media really hyped it up and didn't really look in depth at any of the stuff coming out of the Bush Administration, and part of me has to wonder if they knew in the back of their minds that a war would be good for ratings (the old tv news adage "If it bleeds, it leads" comes to mind) and so they weren't eager to do any in depth coverage of anything that might prevent it..
I'm really not sure if you can even call some of the stations like Fox (especially), but CNN and MSNBC as well "news" .. it's more like infotainment
I don't begrudge them the opportunity to make a profit by having a television station that reports on stories however they want, but the question I have is whether or not they have any responsibility to the American people at all to ensure good, accurate reporting on critical issues.. of if their only responsibility is to cover the stories in a way that leads their shareholders to the greatest profit
If the latter (as I would imagine libertarians would argue) .. then how can you imagine a libertarian world where people need to be informed on the issues to make decisions for themselves instead of relying on government if they have no desire to? It would seem the same decision that has allowed the current degradation in quality of the news (and the profit of places like Fox in particular) precludes the existence of a society desirable to libertarians.
If they do have a responsibility, is there any way for people to hold them accountable except with their ability to change the channel?
