Quote:
Originally Posted by winthrop
Have they always done it? Although there has always been a branch of "light" news features, I can recall the late 'sixties through the seventies a news media that took itself and its job very seriously. Murrow, Huntley-Brinkley and early Cronkite worked before I was old enough to pay attention, but I find it hard to picture any of them engaging in the kind of crap infesting the supposed serious media we see now. As news departments were moved into entertainment and expected to turn a profit instead of providing a public service, the tide changed and the worst of human nature was exploited for ratings.
Federal funding of campaigns would alleviate interest in the money horse race, but titillation would still be an irresistible force, would it not?
|
Well taking into account the major factor, we had about 3 major news casts in the 1970s, around an hour to an hour and a half. That was it, you wanted more news you bought the paper in the morning. There was no internet, information did not move so instantaneously.
Now we have 24 hour new networks. The reason things have become "irreverent" is because of cable, also I don't think Americans necessarily want to hear "trivial" news, but practically how much "relevant" news can we come up with in a 24 hour period? There is not going to be enough, yes the world is chaotic but not THAT bad.
I think we are just suffering from what I "information confabulation" to much information, and picking what is "reliable" or "factual" is near impossible.
04-28-2008, 06:34 PM
Linear Mode
