Follow along with the video below to see how to install our site as a web app on your home screen.
Note: This feature currently requires accessing the site using the built-in Safari browser.
OSU_Buckguy;817974; said:we have the choice, though, of whether we want to be a member of their audience. [/quote]
Your last point strikes me as the most important. The media would not be providing this content if their ratings were dropping.
I see a couple of points you raised a bit differently and thought I might share my views as a patriotic American living outside the US.
In practice, the news media that Americans experience may be less open than other countries due to popular programming formats and media concentration. I can watch live, uncensored news on CNN, BBC, Sky News, CCTV4 (China), CBS, NBC, Russian TV, Bloomberg, RAI (Italy), IQRAA (Middle East), ERT (Greece), among others. This would be true for many surrounding African countries. Even my CNN is different and has more world content than the CNN shown in America. We all have uncensored internet too.
In my mind, this is an American success story. We convinced the world of the need for uncensored media access and many countries now have it. I find it troubling that "slick" marketing and managerial decisions now deprive Americans of that same exposure.
It was not always this way, at least not in the 1960s or 1970s. It also is not that way today in many other foreign countries. For instance, South African TV news services showed a couple of cuts of Cho's message and they dropped the story as a centrepiece of the news.
It was right for the news services to broadcast this story but it has now far far exceeded any perspective.
When you consider that the number of people dying from AIDS in South Africa exceeds the death toll that would result from three 747's hitting the ground every day, it gives you a perspective that one doesn't get watching American TV news. The people dying are poor and rural but they are no less human, no less our brothers and sisters.
Even here, it is easy to live without noticing their passing. I can't help but feel that there is something very wrong about that.
what the average american experiences is different from what the average american can experience. one can receive almost any print publication and can even watch almost any news program, provided that one has satellite or the appropriate internet feed. there is no doubt, however, that the most available news sources in america are also the most watered down and simplified. if only we had a 24-hour "60 minutes" network, save the curmudgeon.Steve19;818049; said:In practice, the news media that Americans experience may be less open than other countries due to popular programming formats and media concentration.
i don't believe that any news entity deprives americans. i think they deprive themselves.I find it troubling that "slick" marketing and managerial decisions now deprive Americans of that same exposure.
the reader/viewer has the choice to turn the channel or flip the page. if all of the news channels are showing the same story, again, there is always the internet and newspapers that offer more news. i won't excuse apathy.It was right for the news services to broadcast this story but it has now far far exceeded any perspective.
deaths in our country or of our own countrymen will always outweigh deaths elsewhere. you cannot deny proximity and association.When you consider that the number of people dying from AIDS in South Africa exceeds the death toll that would result from three 747's hitting the ground every day, it gives you a perspective that one doesn't get watching American TV news. The people dying are poor and rural but they are no less human, no less our brothers and sisters.
Saw31;818057; said:IMO, when "news" became a "for profit" endeavor sometime early/mid-nineties is when we got what we have now. A bunch of drama club actress/actor wannabes reading cue cards. News used to be a "public service" by the big networks. Decisions were based on the importance of the story, not ratings...I also think Watergate ruined a lot of what "news" was supposed to be. This whole idea of "reporter as hero" has fucked up a lot of what used to be good, professional journalists. I remember hearing a poll of journalist students asking "why they decided on journalism"? The number one answer was "I want to change the world". That's not your job douchebags, that's mine and all the rest of ours, once we have been given meaningful and accurate information. I will not go into a full-on rant here because it will only bore people, but I have very good, personal reasons to despise these misery chasing tragedy whores...
and just how posts do we have here on buckeyeplanet that are about hot newswomen?Saw31;818057; said:IMO, when "news" became a "for profit" endeavor sometime early/mid-nineties is when we got what we have now. A bunch of drama club actress/actor wannabes reading cue cards.
those who don't regard these "newsbabes" for what they are probably wouldn't care about or seek solid news anyway.Saw31;818066; said:And that's exactly how seriously I take these "newsbabes". "Nice tits, where's the mute" button...