WingColors

Just because television stations cover entertainment news doesn't necessarily mean that American's are becoming less news conscious. Or should I say, that we get our news in private and in different ways.

Television represents the superficial surface part of American Culture...the popular culture that keeps us connected but in reality there are tons of smart people in our life.

My professor took a poll of our class and found that the majority of the class did not read the paper. When given a current events quiz, the class was able to answer all but one question.

I think that that it is dangerous for people to assume that the person to their left is "dumb" just because they follow entertainment news. Knowledge isn't just facts and current events.

I disagree. Vehemently so, in fact.

I'm no less appraised of world affairs than I was a year, two years, or five years ago. I also know fuck all about Britney's shenanigans. You get the media you deserve (an old tutor of mine said that a lot, and I'm sure he was quoting someone, but I'm not sure who).

I know people who can tell you who won the last four seasons on American Idol and they don't know who their f------ Representatives are.

was looking at Channel 19 and wow, concerts, fashion, gossip and news all on the shows they advertise as news.

Forgive my ignorance, but surely the solution is to watch a proper news channel? Or, dare I say it, pick up a newspaper. If you're some kind of ignorant halfwit that spends all day watching MTV, it's hardly society's fault you know more about Lindsay Lohan than Iran.

The news "we" read is the news we choose to read — "consume" might be a better word, since I'm sure half the neanderthals boning up on Britney don't make a habit of buying newspapers. Again, you get the media you deserve.

I don't doubt that Britney makes the news more than her equivalent would have 20 years ago, or whenever, but if you insist on getting your news from the toilet of the media, you're going to spend a lot of time wading through shit.

I think that that it is dangerous for people to assume that the person to their left is "dumb" just because they follow entertainment news. Knowledge isn't just facts and current events.

It's not dumb to follow entertainment news...that's always been done. The difference (according to King and others) is that it stops at entertainment (non-serious issues). There is a lot of discussion about it this interview on the web today (at least it showed up in my feeds a lot lol).

@Rich: This morning it took about 20 minutes (two commercial breaks) for them to get to the "news", on the show they advertised as being a source for "news". I haven't watched the news in a while but I couldn't help but wonder when the "news" began - after their two or three commercial breaks? Which is why I don't watch the news on TV anymore...

Television is an entertainment medium, before all else. Relying on television for news is like inviting pampered monkeys to fling shit at you.

I grew up watching my dad read the paper daily over coffee, and my mom sometimes read it also, and I never did and still don't. I refuse to watch the news or read the papers, because of the "wading through shit" part that Rich talks about, but I'm sorry, even "real" news stations and papers have their fair share of shit.

It's all sensationalized, even the "real" stuff, the economics, the politics, and the manufacturing. I also don't want to know about the latest killing in the city, or the 20 car pileup on the motorway and all the people who died. I know that stuff is out there, but do I really need it in my face? Will knowing all that change my life for the better? And it's the WAY that the news is covered; it's totally sensationalized as I said. It's just sick, most of the time.

In reaction to the fact that news isn't just news (aside from all that from Stephen King, who makes a good point IMO), I just don't watch, listen to or read any of it. It's a good thing I'm married, because if there's something huge that I really need to know about, my husband tells me. I find out about some major news items on blogs and places like 9rules. If the collective media ever gets over the need to shove sensationalism and celebrities down my throat, I might tune in.

Relying on television for news is like inviting pampered monkeys to fling shit at you.

LMAO I almost spit my Pepsi out laughing at that. :)

edit: @dreamweaver - I grew up the same way. Matter of fact there was a morning and evening paper along with a weekly round up localish paper. Now only one of those exist. I have the newspaper delivered everyday and rarely read it (and you are right about the deaths - the night news usually starts with that). I get my news online and I don't feel like I'm missing anything I care about.

I've never been interested in what pop stars are doing. I didn't even know who Lindsey Lohan was until my Junior year of college. I mean I'd seen her but never knew her face to name, so I'm probably not a good one to ask.

It is the fault of the media because they portray what they put out as news - take Fox for instance, we all know it is a ruse and if we didn't we may soon, as Judith Reagan's lawsuit against them begins.

I hear news used to be real. I think ABC comes closest to anything which might resemble the past - from what I can tell. I'm not sure when it stopped being news, but for as long as I can remember national news here has not been what my parent's tell me news used to be.

Local news is usually real news, it's probably the only televised "real news" out there.

I come from a newspaper and journal family and still can't get used to reading the magazines online.

News to me is what is going on locally first, in the nation second, and globally third. I don't consider entertainment information news. News to me is something everyone should know of.

The thing is, I've consciously avoided the current news, both on TV and newspapers for the past few years for a good reason. A lot of it is depressing and bears no relevancy to my life. Half the things in it don't change anyway.

So what if people half way across the world are killing themselves for a belief and a land they won't give up? So what if there are car crashes, murders, kidnappings, rape and all the things that life seems to make a normality out of? Does knowing about how some poor kid got caught in a crossfire between rival gangs change the reality of the situation? Does it shock you into doing something about it? Does knowing about it change the very existence of your being?

Call me cynical but chances are. No.

The only reason why I would pick up and read is because I'm bored and there is nothing else to do. Fine, my taste in entertainment is morbid because I find circumstances of death in real life far more fascinating than Britney flashing the world her naughty bits.

But in a round about way, that's what society seems to want as well. They are sick and tired of hearing depressing news they can't change. They want to be entertained, they consciously want to poke their nose in the affairs of other people's lives because it makes them forget that their lives are far more mundane than they make it to be.

So for me, I know one way or another, world changing news will filter down to me along the line one way or another by the net or by word of mouth. Hearing about it first doesn't change anything because it's already happened. If I want to know something, I'll look it up. I'll direct my sources to it.

There are so many things out there that are important based on what we continuously search for. Even more are useless because how we run our lives. I just cut the fat and go for the meat. There is more to life than worrying or wondering how other people run their lives.

What if, the TV stations were being forced to run more sensational/entrainment news to compensate for the explosion of news that is appearing on the web? With more competition, news corporations are bound to consolidate and shore up their defenses to save their own bottom line.

TV stations are not forced to run entertainment news to counterpoint the real news, although the thought of the networks doing that in a big brother type of way is not out of the realm of possibility. As Kami stated - I think there are many who feel the same way - most people feel "so what if this or that is happening halfway across the world , it doesn't affect me". If people don't care it's not going to make money, so you have networks wanting profit or networks trying to put out propaganda, either way it's not real news.

@KAMI, I know many people feel as you do, somehow to me that is sad but to them it is normal. I believe because I have lived halfway around the world and back again I may view it differently than most but the fact is the world is really very small, not to have an interest in what goes on in the whole of it seems odd to me. I'm not the one networks are making their millions off of though, it is those who demand the incessant, sensationalists, as if it matters, entertainment news.

@Cooper: I see where you're coming from actually. I understand that in a way, knowing and being aware of what goes on around us is our civic duty and rather than being hermits, we extend ourselves and take part in the community.

Yet there is a difference in say, knowing the latest medical breakthrough and knowing how two nations are trying to wipe each other out. One I can take interest in helping the people around me, the other I can't do anything about it.

However, if say I did live in a place where a civil turmoil or war is going on or know people who are involved in that. I would automatically take interest in and seek out all available news regarding in whether it be TV or newspapers.

We've just progressed to a point where we can be selective about the information we pick around us because there is just too much information that does not relate to us unless we actively take an interest in it.

That does say a lot about what society deems is important.

I would say Michael has a point there. More and more of the young generation are getting their news on the web. News channels and the media corporations that run them would be hard pressed to keep viewer attention high, especially since more and more advertisers are turning to the Internet, in line with the increased news reading there.

@cooper: from a financial standpoint maybe they do. if online news is cutting into their bottom line and more people are likely to watch exclusive entertainment news then more power to them.

as long as we're getting the news in the end. in a way it is ironic. the internet revolutionaries that said TV news was terrible, self fulfilled the prophecy. that's just one interesting point of view