This country is blessed with great newspapers, journalists, and analysts. We have a ton of small newspapers and programs on TV that nobody has heard of as well as arguably the best newspapers in the world.
The Iraq war has gotten coverage in terms of violence on every program I have seen. If by some random chance you end up watching something rare that doesn't cover it, you have the freedom to watch another program or read another publication.
In fact what I don't think gets coverage are the good things that happen on the ground but journalists aren't exposed to because of the dangers there.
-Rudey
Quote:
Originally posted by DeltAlum
Worthwhile questions all, and ones that are or will be debated over and over in the J-schools.
My point is simply that the way any media acts or reacts to any story cannot be answered in a single sentence -- particularly one as trite as "it sells."
I would never argue that media doesn't play to its audience in some ways -- including fluff pieces since every survey and focus group response I've ever seen asks for "some good news," but that's far from the only reason a story is covered.
There's no "win-win" here for "the press."
In this thread alone, the US Media has been derided for spending too much space on Abu Grahib and at the same time, not covering the violence in Iraq.
I'll guarantee that a mention that insurgent attacks are increasing will bring accusations of partisan coverage to those who support our running of the war -- and certainly from the DOD, even though it's their statistics that are being reported.
The only thing I can say is to watch, read or listen to whatever it is you're most comfortable with and ignore what you don't want to hear. That's the only way you will ever be "happy" with coverage.
(Not aimed at you, Rob, but the global "you.")
|