When you click on links to various merchants on this site and make a purchase, this can result in this site earning a commission. Affiliate programs and affiliations include, but are not limited to, the eBay Partner Network.
What value is the majority of the news that makes headlines?
Excellent question.
Answer: It is entertainment. That is its value.
I don't mean that in a derogatory way. Humans are naturally curious. Nosy, even.
A story about a boat hitting a bridge, or a Japanese-American man with a gambling problem, is no more relevant to most people's lives than an episode of Dr. Phil about an obese teenager who lives in his mom's basement in New Jersey and plays videogames for 17 hours a day.
But people, some people anyway, *want* to watch this sort of thing. Why? I'm sure that a behavioral psychologist could probably find the right terminology to describe this phenomenon, but I think we can probably all agree that it's basically the Train Wreck Effect. Nobody can turn away and NOT look at a train wreck.
Originally Posted by sixshooter
The reporters don't choose to or aren't directed to cover stories that are of significant importance like the billions of dollars we've spent buying arms from our own defense contractors to give away to the Ukraine and other countries being more than what we have spent on FEMA for our own countrymen. The defense contractors get theirs, the lobbyists on K Street get theirs, the politicians definitely get theirs, and we get exactly what we elected, a steaming pile of crap. And the bill.
Some do. You're more likely to encounter that sort of in-depth reporting in print media than broadcast, largely because, well... it takes a lot longer to convey that sort of story. Consider things like The Pentagon Papers, the Watergate scandal, or more recently, the The Wall Street Journal's 2022 seven-part series on financial conflicts of interest among officials at 50 federal agencies, revealing those who bought and sold stocks they regulated and other ethical violations by individuals charged with safeguarding the public’s interest.
That one won a Pulitzer.
But never forget that, at the end of the day, we (people who work in media) need to capture eyeballs. We're not actually in the news business, we're in the advertising business, and we need to attract an audience.
Some media companies attract viewers by showing video of men running around a field with a ball, and commenting on it. Some do it by showing video of people driving cars very quickly in a circle, and commenting on it.
We do it, in part, by showing video of boats hitting bridges and wheels falling off of airplanes, and commenting on it.
Then you're admitting to being part of the problem. Burn the witch!
I'm still thinking about Six's question...And, to be fair, what follows is a USA-biased interpretation.
I mean, what was the value of watching Neil Armstrong step off of the LEM and onto the surface of the moon, live, for the very first time?
How did that event actually impact Mr. & Mrs. Leet's life, as individuals, back in '69?
There seems to be a romanticized perception that TV news was "better" back in the days of Walter Cronkite and Edward R. Murrow. And, to be fair it certainly was different. Bandwidth was scarce in the pre-cable / pre-satellite era, so the networks were much more selective about whom and what they gave airtime to. Men of refined speech wore suits and spoke in serious and dignified tones.
But these differences were more aesthetic than substantive, insofar as the everyday practical value of the programming to ordinary folk. The serious and somber-looking men spoke in dignified tones of wars in Asia, and revolution in Europe, and... not of the mayors and senators lining their pockets at the expense of Mr. & Mrs. Taxpayer in Anytown, USA.
That was a job for the Newspapers. It has always been so.
Of course, what is the one form of mass-media which is dying faster than any other in the present day?
Journalism in the 21st century IS dying, but it's not because of some radical shift in how TV works. We (TV) have always been more entertainment than information.
What's changed is that the average person PREFERS to play games on their phone, or watch podcasts which specifically reinforce their own beliefs, rather than reading a daily newspaper, regardless of whether it's a local (eg: The "name of town" gazette") or national (NY Times, Wall St Journal) publication.
Consumer preference is what is killing fact-based journalism.
Emerald Robinson has a great set of knobulations so I believe everything she says...
I keep in mind that if we were living 400some years ago, the government, along with our MSM, would be relentlessly accusing Galileo and his online followers of pushing disinformation for saying the earth orbits the sun. Imagine getting arrested for attending a heliocentric rally.
Originally Posted by Joe Perez
Some media companies attract viewers by showing video of men running around a field with a ball, and commenting on it. Some do it by showing video of people driving cars very quickly in a circle, and commenting on it.
This is so true. I can't watch NASCAR live. There are too many commercials. A while back I watched a NASCAR road course race on You Tube. The whole race is there, but during the times when there would be commercials, there's no commentary. None. Zero. Zip. Nada. Just the race. The whole broadcast is about attracting an audience to sell products.
The whole broadcast is about attracting an audience to sell products.
Yes this is true. Youtube also made money while you watched their video version. This is the whole point of a business, streamed/broadcasted entertainment included. Live entertainment makes money in other ways. But the end goal is to turn a buck. And as Joe mentioned, the news is also entertainment and they too are just trying to make a dollar. If everyone were to understand this, maybe there would be less fanaticism. Or not, but either way everyone should know by now that it's all marketing.
You are being sold something every second you're awake. And when they start messing with implanting chips in your brain to "boost" your capacity, they'll likely start selling you **** in your sleep. Ala that movie "Anon" or so I believe is the name of that movie.
Completely unrelated, it has been a long time since I have had anon. Doesn't look like much and it's a lot of work to eat but damn is it a treat.
Still waiting for anyone(!) in the MSM to apologize for pushing the Russia collusion hoax for years, and promising they'll do better, followed by cramming the jab down our throats for three years.
We're only a few months away from a reporter asking Karine Jean-Pierre if assassinating a political candidate is OK, and her dodging the question and talking about people's feelings.
Hundreds of illegal immigrants storm the border at El Paso, tear through fencing, assault members of the border patrol, and generally just be a riotous mob.
Magistrate Judge Humberto Acosta: "Release them all on their own recognizance. I'm sure they will behave themselves."
Hundreds of illegal immigrants storm the border at El Paso, tear through fencing, assault members of the border patrol, and generally just be a riotous mob.
Magistrate Judge Humberto Acosta: "Release them all on their own recognizance. I'm sure they will behave themselves."
Me: "What in the actual **** is going on here?"
What do you think is going on here?
I'm sure you've read and dismissed all of the "importing voters" and "white replacement" theories, curious your thoughts on what you're seeing unfold.
I'm sure you've read and dismissed all of the "importing voters" and "white replacement" theories, curious your thoughts on what you're seeing unfold.
No, I've not dismissed the importing voters theory. Not only is bringing millions of non-citizens into the country, and giving them free food and housing and healthcare and letting them vote a good way to flip red states blue, but I'm slightly confused by Governor Greg Abbott (R) of Texas paying to bus them all to "sanctuary cities" in solid-blue states, as the fact that they are counted in the census means that their numbers increase the congressional representation of those states.
I am not so cynical, however, that I do not continue to be shocked by how openly and unashamedly it is happening. Or by how much certain segments of the population actually cheer it on.
Harms are being done which will be impossible to un-do.
No, I've not dismissed the importing voters theory. Not only is bringing millions of non-citizens into the country, and giving them free food and housing and healthcare and letting them vote a good way to flip red states blue, but I'm slightly confused by Governor Greg Abbott (R) of Texas paying to bus them all to "sanctuary cities" in solid-blue states, as the fact that they are counted in the census means that their numbers increase the congressional representation of those states.
I am not so cynical, however, that I do not continue to be shocked by how openly and unashamedly it is happening. Or by how much certain segments of the population actually cheer it on.
Harms are being done which will be impossible to un-do.
The beauty of sending illegal immigrants to sanctuary cities is so that the blue voters get it, gooder and harder. They absolutely should live under the fruits of their political choices. City coffers are drained, while there's no chance of any red seats flipping blue. The rest of the country gets a "teachable moment," as well as some of the less ideological Left.
On another note, I saw that the FBI is not requiring cities to report their crime stats like they have in the past. The Democrats have jumped on the new statistics that show the murder rate has gone down by 6%, but that's only after cities like L.A., Chicago, D.C., Miami, New York and others failing to send their numbers to the FBI.
I remember when the FBI stopped listing the amount of police per population, as was the standard for decades. For example, my town has approximately one sheriff for every 1,450 residents (extremely low), and yet it's somewhat understandable as the Orange County Sheriff's Department charges nearly $300,000 per year for each sheriff, along with insurance, air support (helicopter), and other support services. It gets expensive, fast.
Jack Smith's response is hysterical (and not in a funny way in a desperate way) bc he knows he has little control over her decision related to final jury instructions.
And he is arguing the basis for Trump's "unauthorized possession" of national defense material rests on Obama exec order not the Presidential Records Act.
So everyone who cried for months that "DRUMPF BROKE THE PRA!" can sit down. Jack Smith says PRA now has nothing to do with the case.
Also reminder of the bait and switch here. NARA sought files based on the claims Trump was violating the PRA.
He produced 15 boxes of papers. NARA then claimed they found records with "classified markings" and sent a criminal referral (1st time ever) to FBI. FBI promptly opened investigation.
FBI sent a subpoena to Trump in May 2022 seeking more records with "classified markings." They turned over 38 more files.
Then in August, FBI sought search warrant seeking "national defense information."
Reminder too we have not seen full unredacted application for search warrant. Did DOJ seek warrant under the PRA or the Espionage Act or Obama's Exec Order or....what?
The Help America Vote Act was signed into law by President G.W. Bush in 2002.
Among other things, it establishes a policy which requires states to allow a person's identity to be verified for voter registration purposes by matching their name to the last 4 digits of their SSN, rather than requiring a photo ID as had previously been the case. This is why, historically, voter registration was usually done at the driver license office- they're the ones who process most of the photo IDs in the first place.
In many states, illegal immigrants may not obtain a government issued photo ID. They may, however, obtain a Social Security number, for the purpose of seeking a work authorization permit.
Since the beginning of 2024, 281,112 people have newly registered to vote under this provision in Arizona, and 1,475,842 have done the same in Texas. (source)
Those are fairly high numbers of new voters registering without photo ID, in border-adjacent swing states.
How does that get around the fact that you need to be a US Citizen to vote? From usa.gov:
"Who can and cannot vote
Learn if you meet the qualifications to vote in federal, state, and local elections.
Who can vote?
You can vote in U.S. federal, state, and local elections if you:
Are a U.S. citizen (some areas allow non-citizens to vote in local elections only)
Meet your state’s residency requirements
You can be experiencing homelessness and still meet these requirements.
Are 18 years old on or before Election Day
In almost every state, you can register to vote before you turn 18 if you will be 18 by Election Day.
Are registered to vote by your state's voter registration deadline. North Dakota does not require voter registration."
The Help America Vote Act was signed into law by President G.W. Bush in 2002.
Among other things, it establishes a policy which requires states to allow a person's identity to be verified for voter registration purposes by matching their name to the last 4 digits of their SSN, rather than requiring a photo ID as had previously been the case. This is why, historically, voter registration was usually done at the driver license office- they're the ones who process most of the photo IDs in the first place.
In many states, illegal immigrants may not obtain a government issued photo ID. They may, however, obtain a Social Security number, for the purpose of seeking a work authorization permit.
Since the beginning of 2024, 281,112 people have newly registered to vote under this provision in Arizona, and 1,475,842 have done the same in Texas. (source)
Those are fairly high numbers of new voters registering without photo ID, in border-adjacent swing states.
03-27-2024, 02:58 PM
3
