2344LikesLord Voldemort? heheOriginally Posted by AJane;2435819;
I'm feeling a bit bad for Prince William and Prince Harry now that those photos of Princess Diana in the wreck have been published. I knew they'd surface eventually.
LinkBack URL
About LinkBacks
Lord Voldemort? hehe
I'm feeling a bit bad for Prince William and Prince Harry now that those photos of Princess Diana in the wreck have been published. I knew they'd surface eventually.
Last edited by Carla; 06-10-2007 at 05:49 PM. Reason: clarify post
Accusation not necessary, phoenix. I wasn't attempting to bait you, as I answered my own question in the very next sentence. The vast majority of Americans couldn't have answered your question whether Paris Hilton was being discussed on television or not.
And, funny thing, I listened to cnn headline news on XM radio on my way home from work (3:15pm - 4pm EDT) and it wasnt until just before I got home that they aired a blurb about Paris getting sent back to jail. Then I sat and watched most of Nancy Grace because I wanted more details about Paris on Friday night and the majority of her coverage was about the sentencing of Mary Winkler.
I don't understand how you can ask a question posed to me and I don't see where you answered the questions you posed to me. Because the post doesn't answer the questions I posed, How many soliders died in Iraqi, Why did Pace resign really, Obama statement and so on.Can you name the answers to those questions any better today than you could on Friday afternoon? And as long as people are throwing out percentages willy-nilly, I'd venture into that fray to say that I would think 95% of Americans couldn't answer how many soldiers died on any certain day. Sad, but true.
I really do not understand what television shows you all were watching on Friday, but Paris Hilton garnered possibly 1 minute every 15 minute news segment on the stations here in Detroit on Friday. CNN had exhausted the majority of their coverage by 4pm EDT. And they certainly didn't devote 70% of the ABC Nightly News at 6:30pm to Paris. Even ET didn't dedicate 70% of their Friday coverage. By Saturday if I saw a Paris Hilton blurb I was "lucky."
It's all well and good to want to take what one perceives to be the high road with an issue that is predominantly negative. But exaggeration and misrepresentation of the facts doesn't help anyone's cause.
As far as the percentage of news was covered on Paris, I didn't raise that issue. I simply said that too much news was focused on Paris to the exclusion of other news that happen on Friday.
And I don't find myself accusing you of anything but the truth. You asked if I knew the answers to the questions I posed which I gathered you wanted me to respond since you ask the question in the first place. And in my book, that is baiting.
I'm surprised! I thought 'the majority' of Americans tuned in to Nancy Grace for in-depth coverage of Iraq....funny thing, I sat and watched most of Nancy Grace because I wanted more details about Paris on Friday night and the majority of her coverage was about the sentencing of Mary Winkler.
Interesting discussion from all sides on the "real news" coverage vs trash news coverage. I found myself agreeing with many of the points that several people on all sides of the discussion have made. There are a couple of points I'd like to add --
First, when looking at the news networks and their coverage, I think its important to note the variety of news programs that air on those networks. NONE of them (Headline News may have been the last one and they've gotten away from it) do 24 hours of sitting at an anchor desk telling us what is happening in the world. Throughout the day, each has different types of programming for different types of news. In the daytime, when the Paris adventure was happening on Friday, all of them tend to do more "this is what a live camera is showing us" kind of news. That's why we see car chases in LA, even though they don't effect traffic for most of us, and snow storms in New York, even though those don't effect most of us, and a fire blazing in St Louis, just because fire on TV makes for pretty pictures. The daytime news is more of the "this is what the feeds show right now" kind of news. And in primetime, most of the programming on all three networks is more sensational, combative, and entertainment focused (as in entertaining us with watching news, not as in focused on the entertainment industry). But in the window between those two, I'd argue that they do focus on REAL news -- I think The Situation Room on CNN and Special Report on Fox News are two of the absolute best shows on TV at not just reporting what is happening, but also going in depth as to why it is happening, and what it means. I admit I did not watch either The Situation Room or Special Report on Friday, but I'd be SHOCKED if they devoted large amounts of time to Paris, and FAR more time to Peter Pace. There is a chance that if you're tuning in to a news network and not seeing what you consider to be news, you may just be tuning in at the wrong hour. It's easy to say "But they're supposed to be 24 hour news". True. But MTV is supposed to be 24 hour music ... I'd say CNN, MSNBC, and Fox News show more hours of news than MTV does hours of music.
Second point (hopefully not as long) on America's fascination with stories like Paris, or Anna Nicole. Here's my theory on why we do that -- It used to be way back when in the days when everyone knew their neighbors and socialized with their neighbors that the needs we have to gossip about people were fulfilled in those circles. Everyone in the neighborhood knew each other, so if Martha, Susan, and Peggy got together for coffee and wanted to talk about that crazy dress that Lucy in the blue house was wearing, or that man that seemed to be spending a lot of time at Betty in the yellow house's home when her husband was at work - they could do it, and they all knew who the other was talking about. But for the most part, we don't socialize like that anymore. Many neighbors don't even know each others names, let alone get together socially. And gossip just isn't the same when you mention a person, and everyone else around the table has no idea who Lucy is, or which house on the street is yellow, because they don't live on your street. Now, its the celebrities that everyone knows. The desire to gossip and analyze relative strangers lives is here, just like its always been here. Analyzing celebrities that everyone has heard of and can read about gives us an avenue to gossip about people that everyone knows about.
I agree mostly with your post Veruka. But I question about people's facination with Paris. I wonder if the ratings on MSNBC, CNN and Fox went up on Friday with all the Paris coverage. If I heard the Neilson ratings then that would be interesting. So, it's like which came before the chicken or egg. If the news is focusing predominately on Paris, where is the fasicnation if that's all they are getting to see. Reporters were saying that the pictures of her getting into the sheriff car was worth nothing because it wasn't exclusive and a paparrizi said most of paris pictures don't sell that much because she has too much exposure, her pictures are just a staple of magazines but her picture on the mag cover doesn't increase sales. I would be interested if People magazine put her mug on it's cover would it generate an increase of sales say to the level of Angie Jolie, Brad Pitt or Princess Di.
So I don't buy the fact they even a majority of people are so interested in Paris. I think we are being force fed it. The Network is making the decision of what we are obsess with. Unlike TV shows, the network decides what to put on, but the people pick and choose what shows to watch and the Neilson report which shows should be cancelled because of low viewership. There is no checks and balances with news reporting on the cable news shows. I love watching Tucker which was pre empted by paris on Friday and Chris Mathews which spent the first half of his show on Paris and the other half interviewing Nancy Pelosi.
MSNBC, CNN and Faux are not the only news programs on tv. Network news gives a timely, up to date and unbiased reporting of the day's news events - I guess ya gotta know where to go to get what you want.
Although I respect your opinion, I personally have never experienced unbiased reporting. Even from the news sources I respect the most, (i.e. NPR) there is bias in the reporting. It may be unintentional, it may be subconscious, but I see it there nonetheless.
I don't believe the major cable news channels give us timely, up to date information. Network news does try but it's hampered with the 1/2 time slots and also the feel good spots it trys to highlight at the end of the program. I would rather have network news be commerica free for their 1/2 hour. And well all know cable news is anything but un bias. As I stated a majority of americans receive their news from tv. Alot, (forgot the number, but it was higher than I excepted) of families don't have cable tv, forget about internet. So how are they supposed to look and search for news if they don't have access or diversity in the news that is presented to them.
Posting Permissions
Reply With Quote