The biggest problem with the MSM

...Is the viewers!

When I think of reporting, I think of pressing issues. But there are millions of viewers who are constantly titillated with tales such as these:



I know, it's a damn shame. The stench of the homeless folk who slept on that bench clearly put Keanu off his meal. But that's not the only story that broke lately; when most the population is concerned about jobs, the rising cost of living, and other such problems- BS TV leads the coverage with this exclusive photo of a celebrity wardrobe malfunction:



You get the picture. But why do certain media outlets focus on the foibles on the rich and famous when there are more pressing issues? Because some people want it. They need it. Anyone with half a brain can find an accredited source of information, but some people can't be bothered to find it, so they are spoon fed whatever that is dished out to them.

Take my friend "T" for instance. He was sleeping on my couch and was a very early riser, so until I woke up he had control over the remote, but on more than one occasion I awoke to find him watching what the local commercial program considered as 'news'. Less than a minute later their 'gossip correspondent' was briefing us of all the celebrity gossip that occurred in the past twelve hours and had more air time than the news and weather combined.

T is not exactly an oxford scholar, but still I asked him how he could watch this news when it clearly wasn't news. He didn't have an answer and clearly didn't care, which is the type of person that the MSM panders to. Sure they aren't the most honest, professional, reliable or unbiased sources out there, but they don't need to be when millions of people keep tuning in day after day, and I know of at least one person who has benefited from it's demise:



We can all complain about how the MSM conducts itself and what it broadcasts, but it wouldn't be possible if no one was watching to start with. At the end of the day who's the bigger fool-the fool, of the fools who follows him?

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

I was expecting more of a tile like The Problems with MSM and then opening it to an endless thread....but I guess this is a good start. Censoring out big birds big bird is pretty comical though I had a hoot.

And Ive yet to discover what makes the Kardashians famous enough to have a televison show. Thats entertainment??????

I think the MSM refers to the "Main Stream of (septic flowing) Muck"

a reply to: Thecakeisalie

You are absolutely correct. If no one watched it, they wouldn't show it. Once people quit buying it, they won't sell it. It is superficial to say the media is to blame while the millions and millions of viewers get a pass, as if someone forced them to pick up a remote and turn to a certain channel. If the state of the history and the learning channel is any indication, it's about giving people what they want, and not what they need.

The more drivel that passes for news, the dumber and less caring the sheepel become

Don't upset the masses with real news or journalism or they might not like what is happening.

Make them dumber by feeding their minds baby food and turn them into mindless drones who do the bidding of the people in charge. Haven't you noticed the vast increase in drivel in the news since brothers, sisters, and spouses of every major network executive (ABC, NBC, CBS, CNN) started working in the White House in the past six years?

x

what bothers me more; is not so much what we consider the "mainstream media", but the wingnut media, that's had a negative influence on the mainstream.

Fox I think is one of the worse contenders in this regard, they seem to have ingrained the tactics of the right-wing-reactionary-press (drudge and his ilk), and use said tactics to form a "politically correct"-conservatism, (politically correct does not mean "what leftists consider proper" rather "what are the proper view to hold in any group", thus those brietbart-reading-wingnuts in their endless parroting of talking points/rants, some of which are against "political correctness", are themselves politically correct for the audience of the site in question, you go onto a feminist newsite, they'll enforce comments to be "politically correct" to the views of that website, if you go onto a MRA site, "political correctness" will be enforced according to the veiws held by the site. This enforcement can be official (deleting posts) or unofficial (having your views attacked in an agressive/rabid fashion).