Media question: What if...

DerrickDerrick Posts: 475
edited May 2007 in A Moving Train
What if news was not allowed to prioritize crime stories ahead of other stories?

- TV would not be allowed to broadcast crime til after 11pm
- Newspapers would not be allowed to put crime stories on front pages
- Newsradio stations would not be allowe...eh, nevermind, no one listens to Newsradio anymore.

Would the world be a better place?
Post edited by Unknown User on

Comments

  • CollinCollin Posts: 4,931
    I doubt it.
    THANK YOU, LOSTDAWG!


    naděje umírá poslední
  • farfromglorifiedfarfromglorified Posts: 5,696
    Derrick wrote:
    What if news was not allowed to prioritize crime stories ahead of other stories?

    - TV would not be allowed to broadcast crime til after 11pm
    - Newspapers would not be allowed to put crime stories on front pages
    - Newsradio stations would not be allowe...eh, nevermind, no one listens to Newsradio anymore.

    Would the world be a better place?

    What if you were not allowed to make this post?

    Would the world be a better place?
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    Instead of restricting what and when they can show something, I would much rather encourage them to actually show more "news", not the over-sensationalized celebrity shit that they put on 90% of the time.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • mammasanmammasan Posts: 5,656
    Instead of restricting what and when they can show something, I would much rather encourage them to actually show more "news", not the over-sensationalized celebrity shit that they put on 90% of the time.

    Great point.
    "When one gets in bed with government, one must expect the diseases it spreads." - Ron Paul
  • hippiemomhippiemom Posts: 3,326
    Instead of restricting what and when they can show something, I would much rather encourage them to actually show more "news", not the over-sensationalized celebrity shit that they put on 90% of the time.
    Absofuckinglutely!

    We had CNN on the other night and they were discussing Iraq. They broke into the discussion with the "breaking news" that Lindsay Lohan had just been pulled over :rolleyes:

    I'm pretty big on freedom of speech, but I'd have a hard time getting too worked up if someone passed a law that said you can't market yourself as a "news" network if you report on the driving habits of pop stars. Sort of a truth in advertising requirement ... if you call it a news program, it must contain actual news rather than celebrity gossip.
    "Nothing in the world is more dangerous than sincere ignorance and conscientious stupidity." ~ MLK, 1963
  • gue_bariumgue_barium Posts: 5,515
    hippiemom wrote:
    Absofuckinglutely!

    We had CNN on the other night and they were discussing Iraq. They broke into the discussion with the "breaking news" that Lindsay Lohan had just been pulled over :rolleyes:

    I'm pretty big on freedom of speech, but I'd have a hard time getting too worked up if someone passed a law that said you can't market yourself as a "news" network if you report on the driving habits of pop stars. Sort of a truth in advertising requirement ... if you call it a news program, it must contain actual news rather than celebrity gossip.

    Of course, if Mel Gibson shot the President...

    all posts by ©gue_barium are protected under US copyright law and are not to be reproduced, exchanged or sold
    except by express written permission of ©gue_barium, the author.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    hippiemom wrote:
    Absofuckinglutely!

    We had CNN on the other night and they were discussing Iraq. They broke into the discussion with the "breaking news" that Lindsay Lohan had just been pulled over :rolleyes:

    I'm pretty big on freedom of speech, but I'd have a hard time getting too worked up if someone passed a law that said you can't market yourself as a "news" network if you report on the driving habits of pop stars. Sort of a truth in advertising requirement ... if you call it a news program, it must contain actual news rather than celebrity gossip.

    I have MSNBC on here at work and they just had a segment about a Supreme Court decision today that limited the liability for companies in discrimination suits. It was actually news and pretty interesting, but they didn't spend a lot of time on it (probably 2 minutes, if that). Then after the break they spent about 5 talking about who would replace rosie on the view.... pathetic....
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • vedderelfvedderelf Posts: 100
    The media is only giving people what they want. The general public would much rather watch footage of the aftermath of a bad car crash than hear about some bill being debated before Congress, much as they don't, or won't like to admit it.

    I don't want to make a general blanket statement, but the majority of people either just don't care or aren't smart enough to process what's going on around them. I work as a reporter. I have covered the issue of eminent domain to death in my coverage area and yet there are people who still don't know the factors playing into what's going on down the block from them and how it will affect them.

    They complain about personal tax reassesments but applaud when the city board lures a new Wal-Mart or Target to the area, with, whatelse, tax breaks! I could go on and on with examples, but most people can't understand issues like these but they can run down the entire history of that show Lost.

    The media is definetely not without fault, but who do you think they are catering too? You can't just blame the media.
  • blackredyellowblackredyellow Posts: 5,889
    vedderelf wrote:
    The media is only giving people what they want. The general public would much rather watch footage of the aftermath of a bad car crash than hear about some bill being debated before Congress, much as they don't, or won't like to admit it.

    I don't want to make a general blanket statement, but the majority of people either just don't care or aren't smart enough to process what's going on around them. I work as a reporter. I have covered the issue of eminent domain to death in my coverage area and yet there are people who still don't know the factors playing into what's going on down the block from them and how it will affect them.

    You can't just blame the media.

    I agree with you there too... ratings drive news media, and unfortunately more people want to see the trash that is on the news than what is actually news.

    That is the one reason that the newshour on PBS is the most informative news... they don't need to sensationalize everything for higher ratings.
    My whole life
    was like a picture
    of a sunny day
    “We can complain because rose bushes have thorns, or rejoice because thorn bushes have roses.”
    ― Abraham Lincoln
  • even flow?even flow? Posts: 8,066
    I would like my local news to actually be about 45 minutes of the hour on local news. I live here and that is the news I want to see. Seems that when the world news comes on they could be playing last years clips and not too much is a changin'.

    What blows me away about the news casts that I catch in my city is that it seems that there is one feel good story for about 10 to 20 deaths, murders, hold-ups, etc. After a day of work I would like to see some stories about good in this world.
    You've changed your place in this world!
Sign In or Register to comment.