Article View: wpg.general
Article #517Re: were the media "out to get" Stockwell Day?
From: Walter Roberson
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:42
Date: Fri, 18 Apr 2003 21:42
42 lines
3502 bytes
3502 bytes
In article <3EA06A7D.4060705@netgate.com>, Earl Tunnley <tunner@netgate.com> wrote: :Did Stock get treated fairly by the media? I don't think so. Does -any- politician get treated "fairly" by the media? And how would we know? Avoiding discussion of specific instances, could you describe what to you would constitute the media treating a politician "fairly" ? Keep in mind that most of the big media organizations are *businesses*, and as such their first concern is not to present the most impartial and objective reporting possible: their first concern is generally to keep the business going. The price charged for newspapers is pretty much just the incremental printing and distribution costs, with the cost of the staff and newswire and traffic helicoptor and whatnot being paid by advertising. The more product they sell (the more readers, the more listeners), the more advertisers are willing to pay. Conversely, if one presents articles more than a little critical of one's main advertisers, the advertisers *do* pull out (perhaps more-so in the USA, I don't know.) It is a sad fact that most people don't *want* to deal with objective examinations of all the sides of issues and what the potential consequences are of each available course of action. "News" gets productized and glitzed up and attractive (or handsome or "reassuring") presenters get hired, and stories get trimmed into 30 seconds or 2 minutes because that's what viewers respond to. Neil Postman did a very interesting examination of this about 5 years ago. So... if presenting a politician in a bad light attracts an audience, then no matter what the value of what the politician is saying, that approach is more likely to get press than the "everything's fine" approach. If I remember correctly, the total Canada-wide audience for the Parlimentary Channel is estimated to be less than 1000 people most of the time. People generally just aren't interested -- but Hey, look, there's a re-run of one of the old original Baywatch on tonight, one of the episodes with Pamela Anderson... -- Perposterous!! Where would all the calculators go?!
Technical Details
Message-ID:
<b7prfe$q4u$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca>Path:
arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!not-for-mailReferences:
<3EA06A7D.4060705@netgate.com>Show Full Headers
Complete Article Headers
X-Google-Language: ENGLISH,ASCII-7-bit X-Google-Thread: 109a5e,35a1629a789a5e75 X-Google-Attributes: gid109a5e,public X-Google-Thread: 108c64,35a1629a789a5e75 X-Google-Attributes: gid108c64,public X-Google-Thread: 106cdd,35a1629a789a5e75 X-Google-Attributes: gid106cdd,public X-Google-Thread: f9b04,35a1629a789a5e75 X-Google-Attributes: gidf9b04,public X-Google-ArrivalTime: 2003-04-18 14:42:11 PST Path: arc1-ca.pugleaf.net!archiver1.google.com!news1.google.com!sn-xit-02!sn-xit-04!sn-xit-01!sn-xit-09!supernews.com!newshosting.com!news-xfer2.atl.newshosting.com!newsfeed.news2me.com!snoopy.risq.qc.ca!torn!canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca!not-for-mail From: roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson) Newsgroups: wpg.general,calgary.general,bc.general,canada.general Subject: Re: were the media "out to get" Stockwell Day? Date: 18 Apr 2003 21:42:06 GMT Organization: National Research Council Canada - Conseil national de rechereches Canada Lines: 42 Message-ID: <b7prfe$q4u$1@canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca> References: <3EA06A7D.4060705@netgate.com> NNTP-Posting-Host: zeno.ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca X-Trace: canopus.cc.umanitoba.ca 1050702126 26782 192.70.172.132 (18 Apr 2003 21:42:06 GMT) X-Complaints-To: Postmaster@cc.umanitoba.ca NNTP-Posting-Date: 18 Apr 2003 21:42:06 GMT Originator: roberson@ibd.nrc-cnrc.gc.ca (Walter Roberson)