Why has the standard of our Media gone so low?

Question

We see the local murder cases or celebrity weddings etc being continuously harped on the Media channels.The more important National and International events are overshadowed by these.

Answer 1

Because AmeriKans are functional illiterates with a 5 minute attention span who can't concentrate on any REAL issues... all they can understand is something about s*x.

Answer 2

I think it's because  Americans  have lowered their standards.

Answer 3

B'coz people are interested in these things & that's why they are covering local murder cases or celebrity weddings etc. but not the main news items.

pkn

Answer 4

The "media" are a varied lot. If you're interested in serious news coverage, read the New York Times, the Christian Science Monitor or other weighty and respected newspapers and magazines; watch CNN or other credible networks for pretty thorough political coverage; log on to websites or blogs that focus on the matters you find important; or listen to National Public Radio. Local news—particularly television—is often driven by the if-it-bleeds-it-leads mentality, so there you'll find plenty of gore. Yes, it's sensationalism to a degree. But you have to ask yourself why this is so. "The media" are comprised of human beings, and what reporters and producers find fascinating is not necessarily different from what appeals to everyone else.

I agree that celebrity "news" should be relegated to the gossip column, but if people didn't watch/read/listen to this kind of stuff, you can be assured that profit-driven publishers and networks would drop such coverage like a hot potato. In a sense, media coverage is quite democratic: what gets highlighted is what the majority (or at least the plurality) of the market wants. Be assured that major media companies do plenty of polling and surveying to learn what their audiences want. During the television rating "sweeps," you'll see a combination of great special reporting as well as a big splash of sensationalism, both intended to increase market share.

This, however, is a simplified explanation because the ubiquity of media does shape our worldviews, influence what we find important, dumb down complicated issues (the typical newspaper is written at a 6th grade reading level), and condition people to trivia. So it becomes in part a chicken-and-egg situation. While media provide what we (or many people) want, they at the same time create a mindset that elevates demand for the kind of material dished out.

Then again, think about the most common conversation starter for most people. We comment on the weather. The media are no different. Weather is one of the hottest news stories; locally it's whatever big thunderstorm or snow storm is predicted, and nationally or internationally, it's hurricanes, floods and tsunamis.

But media standards of what constitutes news have not really changed that much, although the proliferation of delivery means have greatly increased the quantity of information we can receive. News is, at least in part, gossip writ large. Before the printing press, news was passed from neighbor to neighbor or perhaps announced from the pulpit. Printed media, particularly newspapers, amplified what used to be transmitted by word of mouth. Radio, television and internet increased news conveyance even more. But standards have not necessarily fallen. Think about the big news in the pioneer days of the American West. Gunfighters and outlaws were big news then; "dime novels" based on Billy the Kid, etc. were best-sellers. Crime, mayhem and disaster were then as now of interest to people. Death is the Big Question for all of us, so murders and accidents interest us, sordid as that may be. There is something, too, about the rich and famous that we seem to find titillating. One of the so-called Seven Deadly Sins is, after all, envy—not to mention greed. Circuses used to feature "freak shows"; today, we get the bizarre antics of Tom Cruise. Many people (to our national discredit) find politics boring. I would hazard a guess that more people will go to the movies this year than vote in the presidential election.

One thing I find disturbing about news coverage, in particular at the local level reported by newspapers, is this: even when the coverage is not trivial, it is heavily slanted toward national and international events (although sadly, even when it is “balanced” reporting, it is usually slanted toward an American point-of-view; we get little about how the rest of the world perceives events). This local slant in newspaper coverage toward non-local news is not bad in itself, except that in our day-to-day lives what happens close to home is far more significant in terms of its direct impact of us. But due to neglect, few people have any idea what their local elected officials are doing in their own communities. We are more likely to know the names of foreign leaders than of our own local aldermen. I don't mean to sound parochial or nonchalant, but in all honesty, a new traffic signal being installed down the street from me (let alone the presence of a serial rapist) has a more significant impact on my life than the fate of the Dalai Lama or the meaning of the fist-bump between Barrack and Michelle Obama.

American news standards may not be what some of us would hope. But if what gets emphasized seems insignificant or silly, then we have ourselves to blame as much as the media, which, by the way, is a plural term and not some monolithic entity. If people cared more, participated more actively and demanded higher standards, we would get higher quality news content. In a market-driven economy—and news is most definitely a business—supply meets demand. If we demanded more in-depth coverage of important topics, we would get it.

Answer 5

Good point, very honestly need some one with vision and good brains like yourself to be in-charge of the affairs.

Answer 6

Because they can count on ignorant people reading and watching their trash.

Answer 7

The media is all about giving the people what they want. In actuality, serious news such as important national and international issue are extremely COMPLEX. To explain to the general public the importance of the G-8 meeting would take hours of television time and hundreds of pages in the print media. In the end only opinions are given with surface factual information. We live in a complicated world where many issues affect a single issue for a limited time until an event causes that issue to change. To report on all the pertinent details would simply be too boring. Thus the reason for sensationalized news, it's easy to understand and gossip about. It's called pandering.

Answer 8

To my knowledge they get paid indirectly for reporting or covering story, it shows importance of the person even though his or her credibility is???

Answer 9

The Media has always sensationalized any story. They just got better at saturating us with it.

I remember when Kennedy was murdered, they media had to invade the families privacy and do close ups on Jackie Kennedys grief. It was sad enough but they ran it over and over and oner until it was etched in everyones mind. Some reporting is still good but now if there isn't a sensational story, they will give it legs by reading something into it that doesn't matter or exsist.