Comments on: Priorities

By: Tarius

Tarius — Tue, 27 Apr 2004 00:48:28 +0000

I’ll make it simple… This world is a society of popular demand, if 51 people think on way and 49 people think another than the 49 will have to bow their heads in defeat. But you will allways have those that question that way. of course you will always have people that would question a 99 to 1 majority vote saying no everyone was satisfied. The media is out for ratings, not to tell people what happens in the world. If they think 3000 killed in an accident will get them ratings then they will play it, but if they decide that they have been publisizing the Jackson case every day for the past month and think that they will loose more viewers by switching topics, then they will go for the ratings. ” Rule of thumb among copytasters (apocryphal): 10,000 killed in Chinese earthquake = 1000 killed in European floods = 100 killed in your own country’s disaster = 10 killed in your town = man bitten by dog next door.” Posted by Dave F · April 23, 2004 12:30 PM The media will present you with ratings, not news… I mean when is the last time that you heard anyone saving a stray cat, or a lifeguard performing cpr correctly

By: greglas

greglas — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 21:29:26 +0000

It is all about ratings, obviously. The two things I find interesting about this discussion are: 1) there seems to be some surprise about the way our culture’s priorities are currently attuned, and 2) no one has cited any scholarship that articulates the proper response. I always presumed that someone in some Department of Something somewhere spends a lot of time thinking about this issue. Is that wrong?

By: RSN

RSN — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 20:23:57 +0000

Ophelia: your analogy doesn’t hold, as you’re now discussing the behaviour of childred. Parents, on the other hand, would hardly want to have their children be indolent in school… or are you suggesting that European media should indeed behave like welfare-state nannies? In that case, it seems to me that the European approach is much more ideologically infected.

By: Ophelia Benson

Ophelia Benson — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 18:18:16 +0000

“In the end, such a system does follow the will of the people more than, let’s say, the statist approach in Europe, where news is ranked according to the priorities of the governments that fund the media.” Yup. And by the same token, a school that let the children play in the sandbox and eat cookies all day would be following the will of the people in its jurisdiction, too. So what? Or to put it another way, the hell with the will of the people.

By: rea

rea — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 13:33:57 +0000

Put that candy away and eat your vegetables!

By: Dave F

Dave F — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 12:30:22 +0000

To be even fairer to the media than tom t (I am a journo, after all), the problem is that the death toll may be either: two (Chinese media), 3000 (South Korean media), 54 (Red Cross, quoting North Korea), 152 (irish aid worker, quoting NK officials). The cause may be either: collision of trains carrying explosives (Red Cross), explosion of leaking ammonium nitrate (various), collision of trains carrying LP gas, chemicals (various). The number of buildings levelled may be 1100 or 8000, take your pick. As to news values of US television networks, these are based on what they think their viewers/web readers are most interested in. So blame the consumer’s shallow values. Only in totalitarian states do news media give people what they think they OUGHT to be interested in. Rule of thumb among copytasters (apocryphal): 10,000 killed in Chinese earthquake = 1000 killed in European floods = 100 killed in your own country’s disaster = 10 killed in your town = man bitten by dog next door.

By: Jeffrey Kramer

Jeffrey Kramer — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 11:05:28 +0000

When Bush included North Korea in the axis of evil, most of the news media took it as proof of what an obsessed wacko Bush must be to target such a harmless, reclusive little country. Ann, can you name a single member of the news media who either said or implied anything remotely comparable to this?

By: ephrem

ephrem — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 08:01:42 +0000

We have a natural appetite for candy, sex and violence. But the possibilities for stimulation have increased so rapidly, seems like we haven’t adjusted to a world-spanning information network, and stylized images that perfectly tweak our glands. It’s natural and it’s manipulation. The big problem I see is the necessity of an infomation system for a participatory democracy. Seems there are incompatible incentives between capitalism and democracy, between the eye-and-ego candy of our free-market news and the responsibilities of the fourth estate.

By: RSN

RSN — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 04:37:15 +0000

“it could be that a more local story gets more attention because that’s what the networks believe their audience wants.” “The priority ranking of news stories isn’t determined by research, but by decree.” As someone who works in the media industries, I can safely say that both of these interpretations are wrong. What determines the ranking of news… are ratings. The stations that air the local news, and news of interest to the American public, are the ones that will win the competition in the market place, and make the most money. In the end, such a system does follow the will of the people more than, let’s say, the statist approach in Europe, where news is ranked according to the priorities of the governments that fund the media.

By: Tom T.

Tom T. — Fri, 23 Apr 2004 01:19:31 +0000

To cut the media a little slack, it may be that the difficulty of confirming any news out of NK is causing them to avoid playing it too big.

By: Poin D

Poin D — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:43:38 +0000

Shorter Xavier: “South Koreans get to shop and North Koreans can’t, so why would the latter care if they die or not? Also, North Koreans suffer because their leaders are evil, and South Koreans don’t because their leaders are good (never mind that ‘good’ means obedient to US-based interests).” (BTW, thanks for being here, msg, you’re a breath of fresh air)

By: Andrew Edwards

Andrew Edwards — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 23:27:41 +0000

6:30pm and Drudge is leading with “John Kerry said something a teensy bit controversial in 1972”.

By: Xavier

Xavier — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:51:18 +0000

I think there might be another valid for reason for caring less about the death of a North Korean than the death of an American or European. Have the North Koreans really lost as much? Life in North Korea is miserable. In death, they’re not really losing much.

By: Xavier

Xavier — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:47:11 +0000

I guess I’ll have to stop voting now. The masses obviously have a preference for silly celebrity gossip over serious news. Look at television ratings and magazine subscription rates. People like crap. You can’t blame corporations for creating that taste. They’re just catering to it. I’m not sure what you mean when you say that Koreans are suffering because of the “violent economies of the world.” First off, South Koreans aren’t suffering. They’re doing pretty well. North Koreans are suffering plenty, but not as a result of world economies. North Korea is extremely isolationist. It’s incapable of providing for itself internally. That’s a failure of the North Korean economy, not the economies of the world.

By: P O'Neill

P O'Neill — Thu, 22 Apr 2004 22:21:43 +0000

Also being shamefully ignored is the coup in the Central African Republic.