Americans blame the media for the saturation of celebrity coverage on TV.

[techs]

http://news.yahoo.com/s/nm/200...3/en_nm/celebrities_dc

By Paul J. Gough
Thu Aug 2, 10:51 PM ET

Americans blame the media for the saturation of celebrity coverage on TV.

A survey conducted by the Pew Research Center for People & the Press said Thursday that 87% of respondents believe celebrity scandals get way too much ink and airtime. Only 8% think the media get the balance between celebrity and serious news right, while 2% told the surveyors that there wasn't enough celebrity scandal coverage.



Here's a hint. If celebrity coverage didn't get high ratings there would be less of it.
Here's another hint. Don't want to watch celebrity news? Change the channel.

 

[StageLeft]

Well, Americans are obviously idiots (those who blame this on media, I mean). The media is selling them whatever crap they want to eat, just as McDonalds isn't the reason somebody weighs 300 lbs. It merely enables, just as the media enables, but it's not the root cause.

 

[Gneisenau]

Well, this is the age of "Blame everyone else" for your own mess. I stopped buying newpapers and watching new casts years ago....I feeling much better now....

 

[Fern]

Gee, that seems like good news to me. Indicates the average American may not be as dumb as we think.

Turn the channel? Haha, same crap is everywhere. The bridge incident is a perfect example. I switch from CNN, to MSNBC, to Fox, to CNN Headline News - all the same stuff on the MN bridge. Where you gonna turn too?

As far as ratings, bah. No one's ever hooked up the gizmo to my set. Plus, if everyone's showing the same stuff what difference would it make?

Fern

 

[Ldir]

I agree with Fern. Changing the channel does not help. Either pop in a DVD or turn off the TV.

 

[Atomic Playboy]

Originally posted by: Fern
Gee, that seems like good news to me. Indicates the average American may not be as dumb as we think.

Turn the channel? Haha, same crap is everywhere. The bridge incident is a perfect example. I switch from CNN, to MSNBC, to Fox, to CNN Headline News - all the same stuff on the MN bridge. Where you gonna turn too?

As far as ratings, bah. No one's ever hooked up the gizmo to my set. Plus, if everyone's showing the same stuff what difference would it make?

Fern

You know a great source for news that has very little celebrity gossip? NPR. You know how their ratings are compared to every other network, and even cable news? Absolutely abysmal. Do you know why? Because, regardless of what they say, Americans absolutely love celebrity gossip.

There's a long-standing axiom in journalism: If it bleeds, it leads. This is a reference to stories about crime, violence and destruction (the MN bridge story is a perfect example, although that is clearly important news). But the pedestal upon which crime is placed by the media is finding newfound competition in the form of celebrity gossip.

From the media's standpoint, crime and celebrity gossip are great stories. They are very, very cheap to cover, and they draw a huge audience. A picture of an explosion, a headline about Lindsay's latest breakdown, these are attention grabbers. People are naturally drawn to them (Americans apparently have a mean voyeuristic streak).

So let's propose a scenario. A news network sees this poll and says "Americans are fed up with celebrity gossip. We will remove these stories from our airwaves to cover real news." What do you think will happen?
a. The ratings will go up.
b. The ratings will stay the same.
c. The ratings will go down.

You would like to believe the answer is a, or even b. The reality is much more likely c. I'll bring in NPR as an example again. It's free, it's available EVERYWHERE, and it does not cover these sensationalist stories like Fox, CNN, NBC, ABC, CBS, etc. It does not do as well as any of them. Americans would simply go eslewhere for their sensationalist infotainment.

 

[Fern]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


You know a great source for news that has very little celebrity gossip? NPR. -snip-.

I think you mean PBS (NPR is radio)?

But you do have a pretty good point. I forgot to check them out last night. I just looked up their broadcast schedule in my area, unfortunately it's mostly about North Carolina stuff, between 7pm & 10pm there's only 30 minutes of national type news.

Fern

 

[b0mbrman]

Originally posted by: Fern
Gee, that seems like good news to me. Indicates the average American may not be as dumb as we think.

Turn the channel? Haha, same crap is everywhere. The bridge incident is a perfect example. I switch from CNN, to MSNBC, to Fox, to CNN Headline News - all the same stuff on the MN bridge. Where you gonna turn too?

You could turn the TV off.

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: b0mbrman

Originally posted by: Fern
Gee, that seems like good news to me. Indicates the average American may not be as dumb as we think.

Turn the channel? Haha, same crap is everywhere. The bridge incident is a perfect example. I switch from CNN, to MSNBC, to Fox, to CNN Headline News - all the same stuff on the MN bridge. Where you gonna turn too?

You could turn the TV off.

thats what i have done.

I usually have cnn/fox etc on during the day. BUT the 24hour covorage of the bridge is getting annoying.

 

[senseamp]

I wish we had a real news channel with no celebrity / missing white woman / sensational story coverage, I'd watch that instead.
Cable news is now about as useful as the National Enquirer for getting news.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: Ldir
I agree with Fern. Changing the channel does not help. Either pop in a DVD or turn off the TV.

No it doesn't really help. THe bridge stuff was a good example, but this is the crap people eat up, so I just watched infomercials this morning while I drank my coffee and get my news from the net where I can quickly ignore non-news like a survivor's recounting of a bridge collapse.

You know a great source for news that has very little celebrity gossip? NPR. You know how their ratings are compared to every other network, and even cable news? Absolutely abysmal. Do you know why? Because, regardless of what they say, Americans absolutely love celebrity gossip.

Yep.

I usually have cnn/fox etc on during the day.

Don't know how you can f**king stand it. I cannot even watch CNN for more than 5 minutes before they inevitably go to something that's totally of no consequence at all. If there is NOTHING on tv and I'm killing time, I will watch infomercials, honest to God. I don't care if they want to sell me an ab machine or a home-business package. Of course I never buy the stuff, but at least it's entertaining in a weird way. CNN, Fox, all total crap.

 

[Moonbeam]

This is the same world Jesus walked on 2000 years ago. Not a thing has changed except names and places. If you want news know thyself. When you know who you are you will know nothing, or everything, depending on which linguistic imperative you wish to use to relay which perspective you wish to speak from.

 

[shortylickens]

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy
(Americans apparently have a mean voyeuristic streak).

http://zundelsite.org/english/zgrams/zg2003/2003-June/000512.html

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: Ldir
I agree with Fern. Changing the channel does not help. Either pop in a DVD or turn off the TV.

No it doesn't really help. THe bridge stuff was a good example, but this is the crap people eat up, so I just watched infomercials this morning while I drank my coffee and get my news from the net where I can quickly ignore non-news like a survivor's recounting of a bridge collapse.

You know a great source for news that has very little celebrity gossip? NPR. You know how their ratings are compared to every other network, and even cable news? Absolutely abysmal. Do you know why? Because, regardless of what they say, Americans absolutely love celebrity gossip.

Yep.

I usually have cnn/fox etc on during the day.

Don't know how you can f**king stand it. I cannot even watch CNN for more than 5 minutes before they inevitably go to something that's totally of no consequence at all. If there is NOTHING on tv and I'm killing time, I will watch infomercials, honest to God. I don't care if they want to sell me an ab machine or a home-business package. Of course I never buy the stuff, but at least it's entertaining in a weird way. CNN, Fox, all total crap.

Just set it and forget it!


I used to do the same, unless there was a good movie on.

 

[StageLeft]

Originally posted by: sandorski
Just set it and forget it!


I used to do the same, unless there was a good movie on.

Best one on TV nowadays is for the Fluidity contraption, which promises to give women a dancer's body. Unlike most of the infomercials for people getting in shape, all of the ones in this one being "educated" about the Fluidity thing already are hot as heck.

 

[sandorski]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Originally posted by: sandorski
Just set it and forget it!


I used to do the same, unless there was a good movie on.

Best one on TV nowadays is for the Fluidity contraption, which promises to give women a dancer's body. Unlike most of the infomercials for people getting in shape, all of the ones in this one being "educated" about the Fluidity thing already are hot as heck.

I haven't watched Infomercials in years. That one sounds like it could be entertaining though, both due to hotness, but just the absurdity of how it sounds.

Reminds me of the Chinese guy who was selling a No Money Down or Government Auctions(don't remember which) program. He always had hot groupies draping all over him, add in his accent and it was comedy gold! As I recall it anyway.

 

[wazzledoozle]

The only news I watch is BBC world news and Frontline late at night on PBS.

Local news is a joke, always has been. "BREAKING NEWS! HOUSE ON FIRE IN THE MIDDLE OF FUCKING NOWHERE!"

 

[Balt]

Originally posted by: Fern
Gee, that seems like good news to me. Indicates the average American may not be as dumb as we think.

Turn the channel? Haha, same crap is everywhere. The bridge incident is a perfect example. I switch from CNN, to MSNBC, to Fox, to CNN Headline News - all the same stuff on the MN bridge. Where you gonna turn too?

As far as ratings, bah. No one's ever hooked up the gizmo to my set. Plus, if everyone's showing the same stuff what difference would it make?

Fern

The first interview Paris Hilton did with Larry King after she got out of prison got HUGE ratings. People could have changed the channel to watch something else, but they didn't.

The media just gives the people what they know will get them the most viewers. Sensationalized and often uninformed garbage. More people will watch a show to see someone else's opinion about the news than watch something more neutral to actually find out about the news themselves and form their own opinion.

 

[Rainsford]

Originally posted by: Fern
Gee, that seems like good news to me. Indicates the average American may not be as dumb as we think.

Turn the channel? Haha, same crap is everywhere. The bridge incident is a perfect example. I switch from CNN, to MSNBC, to Fox, to CNN Headline News - all the same stuff on the MN bridge. Where you gonna turn too?

As far as ratings, bah. No one's ever hooked up the gizmo to my set. Plus, if everyone's showing the same stuff what difference would it make?

Fern

The average American is exactly as dumb as we think...why do you imagine that crap is on TV in the first place? I'm always amused by the idea that the entertainment industry (of which the news media has regrettably become a part) has some agenda besides making money. And the way to make money is to sell things people want, whether it's movies filled with sex and violence or soft "news" that would make Edward R. Murrow cringe. And don't kid yourself, people want all of it...maybe not everyone does, but enough people do to make it a better business model than any other option.

Consider Fox News. There were a lot of problems with cable news, and network news, when Fox News came on the scene...and "liberal bias" was not among them. Whatever bias might exist is so faint, as even the media's detractors seem to reluctantly admit, that it's overshadowed by the sheer lack of discernible professionalism among the mass media. Fox News COULD have been the antidote to that, but there was more money into turning into the model for the brand new "asshole on TV" market. And it worked extremely well, because people don't WANT thought-provoking, intelligent and informative news coverage, they want Bill O'Reilly screaming about illegal immigrants.

 

[spittledip]

I think part of the problem is that too many people watch crap TV- not just celebrity news and general news, but all those incredibly stupid sitcoms, dramas, and action shows. Also, the garbage that people listen to on their Ipods and radios and cd players and pcs. You don't want celebrity gossip? Stop giving them your money. Stop watching and listening to all the garbage that these no-talents put on the airwaves. No more pop-culture losers, no more pop-culture loser coverage on the news.

 

[iamaelephant]

All of you people decry the saturation of celebrity coverage, while more than half of the people in this thread were posting in this Paris Hilton thread. You all bitch about the media coverage in here, but in reality you eat it up. You love it.

I always change the channel or turn off the TV when the topic shifts to celebrity news. I never read articles on the internet or magazines about them. I tell my friends and family to shut up (really) if they try to talk to me about celebrity news. I really don't care. Most of you in here can't say the same thing.

If only more people actually did treat celebrity news like I do, instead of watching it, eating it up and then bitching about it, I think the state of public discourse would move up a notch. But that's just wishful thinking.

 

[Blain]

"Man it's not my fault. If that dude wouldn't have sold me the heroin..."

 

[waggy]

Originally posted by: Skoorb

Yep.

I usually have cnn/fox etc on during the day.

Don't know how you can f**king stand it. I cannot even watch CNN for more than 5 minutes before they inevitably go to something that's totally of no consequence at all. If there is NOTHING on tv and I'm killing time, I will watch infomercials, honest to God. I don't care if they want to sell me an ab machine or a home-business package. Of course I never buy the stuff, but at least it's entertaining in a weird way. CNN, Fox, all total crap.
[/quote]

yeah it repeats all day. only like 3 hours of real news.

i just keep it on for background noice and if something pops up that looks intersting i watch.

sometimes i will turn it to the msic channel but the off chance something newsworthy actually happens i want it on.

but it seem ssince 9/11 the news has changed. it seems all the channels pick a story and have 24/7 covorage of it. such as this bridge unelss there is something new we do not need 20 diffrent people talking about it all day.

 

[zinfamous]

Originally posted by: Fern

Originally posted by: Atomic Playboy


You know a great source for news that has very little celebrity gossip? NPR. -snip-.

I think you mean PBS (NPR is radio)?

But you do have a pretty good point. I forgot to check them out last night. I just looked up their broadcast schedule in my area, unfortunately it's mostly about North Carolina stuff, between 7pm & 10pm there's only 30 minutes of national type news.

Fern

he means NPR, as it is largely a news-based broadcast. I think his point wasn't so much how the information is disseminated (via TV), but the type of information that the ave. american considers worthwhile.