What's Wrong With the TV News 536
MBCook writes "Technology Review has a fantastic seven page piece titled "You Don't Understand Our Audience" by former Dateline correspondent John Hockenberry. In it he discusses how NBC (and the networks at large) has missed and wasted opportunities brought by the Internet; and how they work to hard to get viewers at the expense of actual news. The story describes various events such as turning down a report on who al-Qaeda is for a reality show about firefighters, having to tie a story about a radical student group into American Dreams, and the failure to cover events like Kurt Cobain suicide (except as an Andy Rooney complaint piece)."
What's wrong with TV news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Paris Nicole Spears
Seriously, I really don't give a fuck. If I did I would purchase tabloids. How about some substantive reporting on actual world events? Or if you still have time to fill, some factual information on the presidential candidates. Like, maybe some stories on what they actually believe and have a record of voting for, so the public will be more informed and can make better decisions. Not stories analyzing who is ahead by 3% in the latest poll in what states or who has the best chance of winning. That only breeds bandwagoning subject to the control of the media. This is of course exactly what they want though, which is why we will continue to see no stories with real factual content, and simply sound bites.
The internet is much better as a news vehicle because I can actually find stories with real content which complexly explore the issues. Apparently the news networks think that no one's attention span is greater than 1 minute and 30 seconds, so they mandate that no stories should be covered in depth. Occasionally there are multi-hour specials on certain things, but apart from that, there is rarely regular substantive coverage of important goings on.
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:5, Insightful)
What do you expect? TV is designed for the lowest common denominator. Why? It's simple. Most people don't watch TV to be educated. They watch to be entertained. Having an active mind while staring at the TV screen is an alien concept to many.
Case in point: The decline in educational content on channels such as Discovery and TLC.
Comment removed (Score:2, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Well, the Newshour on PBS is still decent. Not, you know, Edward R. Murrow decent, but still. 60 Minutes also occasionally does a good bit.
And there's always the Daily Show. Except when the f*%#ing writers feel like striking. Someone should let them know that "fairness" and "consideration" are secondary to my fix!
The trouble with TV (why print rules) (Score:5, Insightful)
So news is all soundbites.
Big Media a Political Tool (Score:5, Insightful)
Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
People should call into Stewart to suggest that he come back on the air and does a straight news show until the writers return.
Has the world gone mad? (Score:3, Insightful)
For quite a few years now, the only place I have gone for objective reporting on real American news is the BBC and Reuters. So I suppose the world hasn't gone mad. Only American media has.
We already know this (Score:5, Insightful)
Unfortunately, history and civics education in the US are so atrocious that I would not expect many Americans to remember any of this, making us doomed to repeat mistakes from a hundred years ago.
Why cover real news... (Score:3, Insightful)
Seriously, folks. Think about it.
There could be dozens of reporters, embedded with U.S. troops in Iraq and Afghanistan right now. Long-term. Providing up-to-date information, first-hand insight, and actually getting to know the areas they are in.
But, sadly, this would cost actual money (one could make various political arguments on each side of this as to why it is or is not covered, but let's focus on the bottom-line here). So, instead of, you know, covering these things in an in-depth fashion, the media might, every once in a while, drop in a guy for a 24-48 hour stint with the primary purpose of getting a nice quick video snap of something interesting. Whooptey-freakin'-doo. They'll spend the rest of the time sitting in hotels, out-sourcing reporting to heaven only knows who (and sometimes it appears the reporter doesn't even know). So rather than getting the look from someone who could have some expertise in the area, we get something filtered through Lord only knows who that's working as a stringer.
Then, instead of more reports, or an in-depth report, we get a short report followed by commentary from someone whose whole qualification on this matter - and all others - is the fact that he/she has an opinion on the matter. It's the same on all the networks, every last one of them. Why pay for reporters to go out and do expensive foot work when you can get short snippets from outsourced reports and then fill air time with someone blathering on about them?
There are a few good reporters on the ground in Iraq - they're called bloggers, and the reader automatically understands and accepts there's a bias to their reports. But for the most part, the mainstream television media has become a sick joke - whether it's CNN, Fox or MSNBC.
Re:We already know this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:3, Insightful)
And failing to mention that the error margins of the poll are +/- 5%. That always bugs me.
The target audience's attention span can never be longer than a commercial break. You might think you can get away from this by watching public broadcasting -- but then, how long are the pledge breaks?
Re:Big Media a Political Tool (Score:2, Insightful)
They have to sell commercials (Score:4, Insightful)
Slashdot is about as guilty. See repeated stories of "bricking" where no devices were irrecoverably harmed, that is, "bricked".
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Big Media a Political Tool (Score:5, Insightful)
The world is like a ship in a huge storm
- the rudder is broken, and the mast just broke also, the ship cannot be steered any more
- the captain and crew are totally drunk or stoned
and the news media are there to make the passengers think they are on a holiday cruise
Show over substance (Score:3, Insightful)
News, or rather, reports about events that moved the world or had some serious impact for national and international developments, got replaced by patched together stories about some celebrities doing some crap. Now, what kind of "news" is that? What kind of "information" is that? Who the fuck cares whether some blonde bimbo shits into the pool of her ex? But we don't get to hear that some countries in Africa are fighting over their border, which can and does have some impact in our lives, even if it only leads to more expensive coffee.
Sit down for the next news and watch carefully what you get to hear. How much is about politics, how much about technology, how much about tabloid news (i.e. celebrities and other petty, meaningless, pointless and mindless rubbish)? You'll notice that the last category takes up a sizable portion if not the majority of the "information" you get.
Then, watch politics closely. How much is national, how much international? And how much of the national news is more than thinly veiled election advertisment?
How much is actually information, and how much is just something "inciting", something to speak to your heart rather than to your mind?
That's what's wrong with the news. It's not about information anymore.
Re:Very very simple to answer... (Score:3, Insightful)
The heartbreak comes from the fact that our common citizens are willing to settle for so much less. Have you seen the voting turnout percentages? It fits appropriately with the quality of television media as a source of any relevant information. This country is so big (population and geography wise) that we are largely detached from each other on certain levels. To be trivial for a second, all stats point to this country having a religious majority, yet I don't think I know a single person that has gone to a church since childhood, if ever. At the same time, any brand or product that wants national recognition will have to be equally appealing to my type and to those whom I may not have anything in common with. I can't blame the media for trying to do the same: appeal to as many people without alienating anyone. Thus we have reality TV shows about ex-football players who have to dance with dead celebrities in order to save us from a zombie attack!
And stay tuned to find out which popular breakfast cereal could probably give you anal leakage, and kill your mother. After the weather report, with Al.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
Otherwise, interesting article.
Comment removed (Score:5, Insightful)
You forgot the dupes ... (Score:5, Insightful)
Well, so long as it involved interns and politicians. I can't remember how many times the news seemed preoccupied with Chandra Levy, Monica Lewinsky, or whatever mostly unimportant event that got covered each day with slightly new 'breaking' information. If you want that, you have to go to Digg to see what each 'breaking' website has on the latest Apple rumors.
At least Slashdot doesn't do the completely useless teasers
It's crap like this why I don't watch the TV news anymore. I do listen to news on the radio, and they do the same thing, but I get traffic reports every 10 minutes, which is important in the Washington, DC area -- I just don't listen to it for 2 hrs straight, or I know I'll hear the same stories repeated.
Re:Journalism and Journalism Majors (Score:1, Insightful)
It is worth noting that our group was composed mainly of biology majors. Apparently this journalism chick was worried about her own job prospects, and for very good reasons.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
The Daily Show may be a fake news show but much of the damning parts are simply juxtaposed video clips of the same person saying two completely opposite things. That's what keeps me watching, is the memory the show seems to have about public record. So many "journalists" seem happy simply to be talking to their subjects or about their subjects that they don't call them on obvious bullshit. It's a fake news show insofar as it's not purely a news program, but it's also not as though they have actors playing Bush, Cheney, Rice, Craig, etc. in skits.
The Daily Show is returning on Monday (1/7/08) without its writers.
What's wrong with nerd gonads? (Score:1, Insightful)
Funny you should say that and talk about "lowest common denominator" because today's TLC show is about the anatomy of sex.
Anyway I don't think the problem is the Internet, but underutilization of broadband. Here's most of America with cable TV and usually a fat pipe between head-end and customer. Use your imagination on that.
Re:Big Media a Political Tool (Score:3, Insightful)
Kurt Cobain Suicide importance (Score:4, Insightful)
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:3, Insightful)
Kurt Cobain was a vastly more important figure in the rock scene than Brintey/Paris/Nichole. Not mentioning his death would be like not mentioning the deat of Pavarotti.
The point in the article though was not that NBC should have done saturation coverage on Cobain but that it should have been covered as news. It would only be considered news if there was a tie in to some primetime show. Cobain dies in 1994, before Iraq/Afghanistan/Paul were stories of any sort.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
Television news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:3, Insightful)
The first war in Iraq was in 1990-91. Iraq was a story before Cobain died.
Afghanistan should have been a major story in the early 1990s. The mujhadin took over the capital in 1992 [pbs.org] and paved the way for the current government.
Ron Paul wasn't a story, but Ross Perot [wikipedia.org] was.
If the complaint is that there isn't enough "hard" news or "real" news then Kurt Cobain is a terrible example. He was important to rock, but Britney is important to pop.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:4, Insightful)
Remember who is the customer (Score:5, Insightful)
It's NOT the viewers. It's the ADVERTISERS.
The advertisers pay the stations to wave their products in front of X number of eyeballs. The television shows (and yes, that includes news shows) are simply the bait to keep X at the highest possible number. The programs are NOTHING MORE THAN BAIT. Since the presence of bait+advertising is zero-sum (ie more bait means less minutes of advertising to viewers), then the ONLY tactical goal of the studio is to make a show that will keep a person watching even when the bait is taken away (commercial breaks).
Keep that in mind at all times, and you'll find that watching TV, while occasionally entertaining, quickly becomes repulsive.
John Lennon sucked. (Score:2, Insightful)
Not as bad a Paul though.
He's a one man demonstration of what was wrong with the record industry. Forty years of crap, #1's via payolla (but only one per disk).
Two words! (Score:3, Insightful)
It really is as simple as that. In 1987 news media was crippled. And that was the beginning of the end.
Re:Kurt Cobain Suicide importance (Score:3, Insightful)
If it involves a celebrity there is a 99% chance that it's fluff and won't make a lick of difference to my life in any way.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:3, Insightful)
If Pavarotti had only done 3 albums. Like many rock artists who died young, Cobain's death spared him the idignity of becoming a has-been. Had he lived he might very well be on "The Surreal Life" today.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
The best way to look at why things show up on TV is to look at the justification for a current affairs show on a new bra for women.
These segments are considered prime for any show for two reasons. The first is that women are genuinely interested in a new bra, potential for them is more comfort or whatever it is a woman wants. The second is directed towards men and is, of course, the female breast. About 98% of straight males will watch one of these segments on the off chance that they will see a decent set of flesh mounds or perhaps a missed-editing nipple.
So why is Paris Hilton to news shows? Because we get to see her fleshy self. Now personally I hate the woman, so this doesn't apply to me, but a lot of people (perhaps people outside of the computer industry?) don't particularly care if she's ugly, or if she's loose enough to fit a pineapple into the sweet spot (thank you South Park!), they just care about the potential for tits.
Ok so its not a very noble reason, but lets face it, not much about the human race is.
Note: Statistic is not backed up, an advertising friend of mine told me this sometime ago
This is my $0.02 AU, ignore at will.
Re:They have to sell commercials (Score:3, Insightful)
In the U.S. today ALL NEWS MEDIA (T.V. Radio, Newspapers and Magazines) are nothing more than advertising delivery methods.
You can argue all you want about bias, agenda, fair, unfair... It's all irrelevant.
Accurately informing the public is not close to a priority anymore. Selling advertising is.
The Daily Show with it's "bite the hand that feeds it" attitude is only done to appear edgy and thereby appeal to the demographic. If the ratings weren't there, the advertisers would leave and the show would be gone. Personally, I find it sad that so many here claim it as a major source of their news. Funny and entertaining, maybe, but a major source of information? No.
Re:We already know this (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:They have to sell commercials (Score:2, Insightful)
TV news goes out to millions of viewers every day and is owned by corporate interests such as GE, Viacom, and News Corp. These companies control the integrity of their newsrooms, and control the content that keeps Joe Public informed.
Sadly, even though the Slashdot editors/submitters have less of a responsibility to the public, they do a better job than most newsrooms. I get more information reading just the summaries in the politics section than I could ever get watching TV news.
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:5, Insightful)
Except it shouldn't only matter what "most" people watch TV for. Some people watch TV to be enriched in some way, at least some of the time. I do. Or rather, did. There should be stations to cater to that, but there is this endless obsession with being #1 so everyone tries to capture the largest market share. Which means they're all competing over the same piece of pie, while there are other smaller pieces that nobody is trying to get at all. Doesn't that seem a little stupid?
A strong leader of the Discovery channel, with real vision, could have accepted that they weren't going to compete with idiot TV, and that they shouldn't try to. They should compete to bring a more specialized product to market for a smaller, hopefully more educated customer base. Not every restaurant has to be McDonalds.
Anyone who believes the market solves everything care to explain why this happens in so many arenas?
Cheers.
Re:What's wrong with TV news (Score:3, Insightful)
Immigration is a complex issue and I don't pretend to have an easy solution. All I know is that if I was born dirt poor in some rural wasteland in Mexico with a family and no opportunity, I'd be cutting your lawn or washing your dishes right now. The way Lou talks you'd think the first thing he'd do if he woke up a dirt poor illegal in East L.A. tomorrow is turn himself in. Heh, just not buying it. If I thought for one second he would feel the same way if it was a bunch of white Irishmen sneaking across the border I'd take back every bad thing I'd ever said about him.
Sorry, but "better than O'Reilly" doesn't get you over the bar.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
The difference is that, now, network news is little different from MTV. Stephen King put it very well in one of his recent articles (http://cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/12/28/yir.2007/index.html?iref=newssearch/ [cnn.com]). Instead of a sober statement regarding someone's death, followed by controlled commentary, editorial, and discussion of their impact, it now degenerates into a media circus like something that belongs in a pop magazine - it goes on endlessly, long after any intelligent person ceases to care. Even Anna Nichole Smith, someone who was about as important as Tiny Tim (blessings be upon his Holy Yukelale) and Charro, is STILL a major factor in the news. My only consolation is that the "golden age" of culture is an illusion brought on by the fact that we tend to forget that Murrow, Cronkite, and others were usually sidelined by pure garbage - we just don't remember the garbage for long. And the Golden Age of radio, for all of it's moments, was primarily filled with works of fiction that make modern sitcoms look like Masterpiece Theater. The first half of the 20th century seems to be filled with literary masterpieces, but most of the actual books printed at that time were even worse than what we have today. Conversely, there are many works being printed today that will certainly get more respect from future generations than they can hope for today.
I have a theory. Most people, meaning the vast majority who have no significant neural defects, only believe they can't handle culture. People are conditioned, not by government but by their peers, to believe that science, history, technology, and literature are beyond them. In school, I constantly saw ghetto kids slowly gain an understanding of computers (under my tutelage), then desperately hid it from their peers (to whom any form of academic achievement by one of their own had racial overtones). Later I saw that most people seem to feel that anything beyond them was simply beyond them, not understanding that no one learns "geek" subjects without effort. Some people have a stronger sense of wonder, a more powerful curiosity, that drives them to learn and grow more than others, but I really don't believe there is much that is beyond the average person, if they only paid enough attention to develop an interest in higher culture. People like to be comfortable. They like to have limits, no matter what they say. Regrettably, most people will accept imaginary limits of their own making rather than risk the crushing reality of the real thing, a choice that cripples them worse than any failed undertaking ever could.
That's why the media is the way it is. That's why the lowest common denominator is so low. That's why the masses prefer prolefeed to actual information. They have conditioned themselves to do so, and continue to do so until it (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) becomes sufficiently widespread as to be socially acceptable to their self-imposed caste.
On a final note, I don't care what anyone says about Spears in her post-career phase, I would still tap that ass, no question.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
1. He doesn't consider mainstream news relevant to his life. (Kurt Cobain, etc)
2. He doesn't think the mainstream news will report anything that doesn't grab at gut-level emotions.
Well, he's probably right about both. But his complaints seem to come from the fact that, rather than understanding what the show is and not taking a job there, he tried to make it into something it isn't. The guy should have stayed with NPR if he didn't want to write news copy for the express purpose of selling ads - that's the glory of Welfare Radio. No meaningful bottom line.
Mostly because anything on the TV, Jon Stewart included, is designed to put you into enough of a trance to mindlessly watch advertising. It feeds the bottom line that keeps everyone employed and the bosses in stock options.
Jon Stewart isn't any better or worse than Dateline.
Dateline is a newsy show designed to appeal to emotion, not logic.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a newsy show designed to appeal to a liberally-oriented laugh track, not logic.
If you get your news from either source, you have no idea what's going on. The audiences are equivalent.
The sad part is that so many of you with-whiners don't realize that the same blame you're pointing onto others applies to you as well.
Re:Journalism and Journalism Majors (Score:4, Insightful)
Yes, this is known as Newspeak. The real understanding of the problem is when you see just how widespread this is and that it's not just limited to the newsrooms. Look at what has happened throughout the years to words like "conservative" or "liberal" and how many times within one lifetime they change meanings.
Odd that the demands made to reporters are to find an emotional appeal, and coincidentally enough that's also the same thing you would look for if your goal was to manipulate people. Hmm, what are the chances of that? And how we love our entertainers! The doctor who cures cancer is going to be a rather anonymous figure one month later, but if someone can sing and dance and act we need to know every last detail of their personal life.
For all the talk of diversity, it's amazing how the only form of diversity we don't care about is that of worldviews.
What these all have in common is that they are about group identity. Lots of lovely "us against them" dynamics can be found here, with a hint of "divide and conquer". To whom would such a thing be useful?
And this one is called "lip service", in this case to the concept of individuality. None of the $underdog vs $large_group conflicts are ever the sort that could truly change or disrupt $social_order aka $business_as_usual. Instead, they're all nice and sanitized and safe and they fit rather neatly within the boundaries of mainstream thought. Any "debate" presented is about which prescribed point of view (typically along a one-dimensional continuum such as left vs. right) more accurately describes the subject and is therefore phony.
These kinds of patterns are literally everywhere in mass media. They are not at all limited to this one example. You should draw your own conclusions as to what this means. One idea is that modern "democracies" accomplish with propaganda (sometimes called anonymous authority) the same degree of control that despots of old accomplished with the sword (overt authority); with the second method the people knew very well that control was being exerted.
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:1, Insightful)
This also explains the often peculiar moderation on Slashdot. Many moderators have a habit of modding posts up which are more aligned with their own bias, or modding down those which are against the mod's bias.
A non American view of the US News (Score:5, Insightful)
Lets take this example.
At the time of the first Gulf War, many National Guard Units were being called up. I was on Holiday in New Orleans and the TV News had around 50 minutes (including ad breaks) devoted to the departure of National Guard units to bases where they were replacing the troops who were on their way to the Gulf. Note the coverage was all about the NG units not the regular forces leaving to fight. Lots of weeping relatives and yellow ribbons were shown.
At the end of the News, there was a 15 second piece about the Resignation of Maggie Thatcher ( British PM). Given the Britain was sending many thousands of soldiers/sailors & airmen to the gulf to fight alongside the US forces, I felt almost insulted by the coverage given.
The coverage of the Current US Election(Iowa etc) is quite widespread on UK Broadcast Media (TV & Radio). We are aware of the implications that a change in the occupant of the White House can have on Global stability etc. I wonder how many US citizens are equally aware given the predominance of coverage of 'Celebrity' has on US TV. I was in the US a couple of months ago and was amazed at the amount of time given to what I call Celebrity PAP rather then serious news items. This is IMHO dumbing down.
Personally, I don't give a about the antics/sex/drug/etc habits of so called Celebrities. But I'm at the age where I can be a member of the 'Grumpy Old Men' club (Excellent BBC TV Series).
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:5, Insightful)
I hear what you're saying but that seems a bit circular to me. I don't think there's inherently anything about TV that precludes it from having smart people watch it except for the fact that they don't cater to that audience. Reading books is a form of passive entertainment too, and I don't read the best selling thrillers that dominate the best seller lists, but there are books out there that cater to me, and I buy them.
I think we could both be brought back into that market if someone put in the effort. Long tail and all that.
Cheers.
Re:They have to sell commercials (Score:2, Insightful)
You seem to be operating under the assumption that our current model for funding TV news by commercials is a commandment written in stone. It is not. If funding TV news by commercials has led to a debasement in the quality of news, then we need to change the funding model. The function of the News Media is to serve the public good by providing the public with an accurate view of reality. Perhaps these media giants should be forced by law, as a condition of their use of the public airwaves to set aside a fixed amount of money to fund the news; that funding should go to a separate and independent organization/department that will gather and report the news. This type of "separation of powers" would almost certainly reduce the kind of corruption I read about in the article.
Re:What's wrong with TV news? (Score:3, Insightful)
Reuters? The BBC? Unbiased? (Score:3, Insightful)
Don't you really mean "agree with my world view", because only a total tool would think Reuters in unbiased, last year once again had them caught out several times. Don't also forget that it is thanks to Reuters that the RIAA and the like can just publish their press-releases with whatever they want because Reuters (and other press agencies) have made it their business to simply publish press-releases and NEVER EVER investigate, but still insisting these copied press-releases are "real" news.
As for the BBC, if you think the BBC is unbiased, you are insane. Don't mistake, "ooh they don't say the same as fox news" with unbiased. True unbiased reporting requires taking NO position. Not left, not right. Not hard line, not bleeding heart.
Today the weather was cold. BIASED! By whose standards?
Today the temp reach a low of -4 during the midday. Unbiased?
No, it is the "low" that does it. Some might consider it a high.
Today, at 12:00 the temperature at the bilt (dutch met office) reached -4 celcius. That is unbiased.
Now look at the BBC and Reuters again and read the texts carefully and see just how many times the BBC/Reuters takes a position, trying to convince you.
I see the claim of unbiased reporting attached to the BBC so often I think most people just don't understand the meaning of the word.
Unbiased reporting means reporting the facts, not opinions. Note that at no point does the original author of the story we are discussing EVER seem to want to report JUST the facts, he is upset because NBC did not want to report his OPINION!
As brutal as it may be, the number of iraq casualties is a fact. The number of which qualify as civilian is already an opinion. That people should care about it at all, that is even more of an opinion. Unbiased reporting is extremely rare, stuff like "the coldest day of 2007" is about it. Note that the BBC like almost everyone else now has weather segments that become a part of the SHOW, complete with "LIVE REPORTING".
You hit a pet peeve of mine there (Score:5, Insightful)
You've hit a pet peeve of mine there, and I don't know if it's even racial.
The thing is, it's not only ghetto kids. A lot of white adults too seem to have jumped on some sort of a "computers are too complicated, I don't have time for that nerdy crap" bandwagon. Even as more and more jobs require at least elementary computer skills, it's become more and more unfashionable to admit having even those minimal skills.
And it's not just believing that they can't handle it, and giving up without even trying. A lot do try, see that they can, then try even harder to hide that from their peers. I've seen people who _can_ handle a computer when they're alone, turn into helpless illiterates when there's a witness there.
We scared off the normal people, if you will. It's become a thing of pride to be as far from nerdy as possible.
In fact, in some circles it's become fashionable to be stupid. Cue a downward spiral as each member tries to not end up in the upper 50% of their group.
It's kinda funny. Human culture for _millenia_ respected intelligence. If you look as far back as the ancient Egyptians, a little known fact is that they actually had a phonetic set, but it was seen as a thing of _pride_ to be smart and educated enough to use the hieroglyphs. A relatively common form of flattery was to address a letter "to your scribe", meaning, basically, "I know that you can read it yourself and are your own scribe." The Greeks and Romans took pride in being able to read, write and master such subjects as administration, law, rhetoric and philosophy. (Which back then was _the_ science.) Etc.
Even the middle ages, weren't that dark a time in that aspect. There still were plenty of people trying to do alchemy, astrology and philosophy, which back the was what science _was_. Sure, it looks like ignorant and pointless compared to the modern scientific method and the later figures of the Renaissance, but nevertheless, those people were trying to figure out how the world works. Or there were advances in technology that we don't even learn about these days. The physics of the great gothic cathedrals and their mess of buttresses, are nothing short of amazing when you consider that they didn't even have a proper notation for that. Sure, it's trivial nowadays to calculate the vectors and see why it works, but that someone came up with that back then, it's amazing.
And again, noone considered it shameful to be seen in the company of an astrologer or alchemist. It was a thing of pride, in fact, and even kings and bishops made sure to have one around.
If you look as late as the 19'th century and early 20'th, the explosion of science was partially because people actually took advantage of the increasing opportunities to get an education. We have a whole category of "absent minded scientists", which were really nerdier than most people on Slashdot nowadays, and noone thought it was a social disgrace to be seen with one.
So where did we go wrong? How did it become fashionable to be the most stupid of one's peers?
How many potentially brilliant minds are we losing to that fashion? E.g., the ghetto kids you mention, some of them could become great scientists, and one or two might even discover the next great thing. But they don't, because their peers would mock any kind of academic interest or achievement.
How much is this costing us, as a society? And how long until it bites us all in the arse?
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:5, Insightful)
Maybe if you had a real news service available you would not be so ignorant about culture. Cobain and Nirvana led grunge rock which pushed the last creaky vestiges of glam rock and such off the stage. Cobain's suicide was the 90s equivalent of Sid Vicious's murder of Nancy Spungin followed by his own suicide.
The sudden death of Anna Nichole Smith was certainly a news story, but it wasn't breaking news and it was never justification for the saturation coverage it received.
And yes, there were plenty of other stories being dropped, but if you read the article you would have seen that the lack of a story on Cobain was only one of the examples where coverage was lacking, and a minor one at that. NBC wasn't passing up a story on Kurt Cobain to do indepth coverage of the rise of the Taleban or such. They were passing it up in favor of their usual vaccuous crud.
That much is clear (Score:3, Insightful)
The question was, sorta, when did people start wanting to be stupid, and why? When did it become fashionable to have the intellectual and cultural horizon of a midget in a well?
I'm not even as much asking about the news, as such. That is IMHO effect, rather than cause. As you were saying, people get the news they want to get. And I could even live happily with them getting some brainless entertainment -- news or otherwise -- for a couple of hours a day, if they still used their brains the rest of the time.
But that's just my problem: when they turn off that TV or log off from those gossip sites, they go on to try to be even _more_ stupid IRL. For some people, when they take a break from their circle of RL friends and turn on the TV, their IQ actually goes up one notch. On those TV news they might even accidentally learn that there's a war in Iraq, or that some weird place called Africa even exists, or some trivia. But then they go to their RL circle of friends and it's time for another round of, "oh, I'm too stupid for computers... and I'm too stupid for geography too, and I'm too stupid to have an opinion about Iraq, and generally, little old me has trouble even figuring out which shoe goes on the left foot in less than 2-3 tries. Each day."
Even that gossip and trivia they heard about on TV, are promptly discarded unless they're in the commonly-agreed fashionably brainless set, so as not to make their friends feel inadequate.
Re:You hit a pet peeve of mine there (Score:3, Insightful)
The point is, people have been dominated by change. We have information and possibilities right at our fingertips. This is a huge change and, as you may recall, change scares people. People tend to resist it. How many elderly people still do things "their" way when they can do it more efficiently? A lot of human nature tells us to stick to our tried-and-true methods (even if they're no longer true).
Computers are for geeks!
With time, hopefully, these sorts of things will die down. For example, just look at cultural revolutions in our own country. After the death of Martin Luther King Jr. and the signing of the Civil Rights Act, there were plenty of people who were still as adamantly anti-black as could be. Even though they had no proof, they rejected the change from a position of being "the dominant race" to "equality." Since then, things have improved quite a bit. Why? Well, it's been 30-40 years. A lot of the old people who were that racist are dead now, and we have a new generation of kids who have grown up alongside blacks and other races are taking over, and blatant public racism is shunned. (Well, at least towards blacks. We still have a long way to go, though things are still hardly perfect here, but it's a good improvement)
I suppose to summarize my idea, it would be this: Our scientific and cultural developments have outpaced our ability to adapt to changes as a society, which leads to many rejecting newer concepts out of confusion, fear, and stubbornness.
Re:That much is clear (Score:3, Insightful)
I think this is the easiest part of the equation to figure out -- the mainstream acceptance of rap and "thug life" culture. If you listen to ten rap songs (sucker for punishment?), I guarantee that at least 80% of those will allude to gettin' rich (and/or famous, and/or laid) without being educated. It's not *just* that they talk about success without "typical" education, it's that they often specifically target the white-collar world as being a bunch of pocket-protected nerds who can't dance. I don't think that anyone can argue that 50 Cent portrays an image of hilarious stupidity, yet also significant riches and affluence -- those who are either young enough or stupid enough to use him as a role model aren't likely to be staring down the barrel of too many microscopes in that particular pursuit.
Let's face one fact: a typical education > career progression is about the least exciting path to financial success in the world. It's the case objectively, and severely exaggerated when placed next to being a celebrity, a gangster or an extreeeeeeeme athlete of some kind. Hell, if I could reasonably make the same living getting drunk every night on stage while some attractive young lady in the audience flashed her wares at me and licked her lips, I think... yeah, I probably would leave this cubicle career behind. In about one thousandth of a second.
Re: WMDs? Everyone thought they had them.... (Score:3, Insightful)
Technically true - most countries thought there was a possibility that Iraq had a few "WMDs" - like a few chemical grenades and no useful delivery system, but they didn't think that these constituted a threat to anybody. Hussein had to accept inspections, the US controlled the air space, his economy was severely restricted. Most countries thought he was not a problem, and most countries were right about that, as we now know.
Saddam kept acting like he had something to hide.
Yep, he was a scumbag, as we all realize. He probably wasn't all that bright, either. Having said that, pointing to the non-cooperation of a known scumbag, after you've killed around 100000 people and wrecked an entire country's infrastructure is a rather lousy excuse.
Re:Call Jon Stewart (Score:3, Insightful)
Re:Reuters? The BBC? Unbiased? (Score:1, Insightful)
Now while I take your point about the literal sense of the word bias, I do not think that the BBC news reporting is anywhere close to the nonsense that is often portrayed in from other broadcasters. Opinion vs Fact is a whole other discussion, yes the BBC has too much 'comment' in my own opinion which does lead to too much 'opinion' however its never really been such that opinion is not distinguishable from fact. At least if you have any sense or basic intelligence.
However real-politik and world events are difficult (and often quite dull - how many times do we have to hear about Israel and Palestine? but it is so important these events are reported nonetheless) and nothing is ever as 'simple' as it seems, regardless how the newscasters portray it. But they have an audience to think about and so have to draw a fine line between dull boring 100% fact with concise, snappy, miss some certain points of view from an argument. There are only so many hours in the day so many stories to report on and making TV reports isn't 'easy'. You tihnk those pictures and editorials come from no where?
No I am very proud of what the BBC does and how it does it. While it is not perfect it is one of the best news sources you will get.