Does the structure of broadcast news affect society?

[gmbteach]

This picture came up on my Facebook news feed and it got me thinking so I shared it.



What do you think? Would society be different? One friend pondered on how things would be if we showed good things instead of endless doom and gloom. Would life be different?

 

[rousseau]

The news absolutely affects society, and it would benefit us if it's content was improved, but the problem is that it's a numbers game.

Most people don't want depth, they want light entertainment that doesn't make them think. This isn't a critique, it's just better for people not to think because thinking takes effort, and spending effort on things that only kind of matter detracts from our ability to find food and raise kids.

Thinking about philosophy, the arts, history, is a luxury for rich people who aren't just struggling to survive. So in an ideal world if media had more depth most societies would see social improvements, but in reality most people don't have the energy to spend their time leaning new things, and so will tend toward fluff.

 

[prideandfall]

The news absolutely affects society

i happen to totally disagree with this assertion - i think it's 100% the other way around.

it would benefit us if it's content was improved

though of course this is true.

to the OP and the picture: what would happen is that most people would change the channel or turn the TV off for the last 5 minutes of every broadcast.

 

[gmbteach]

i happen to totally disagree with this assertion - i think it's 100% the other way around.

it would benefit us if it's content was improved

though of course this is true.

to the OP and the picture: what would happen is that most people would change the channel or turn the TV off for the last 5 minutes of every broadcast.

Why? People don't switch now for the sports? Why would they switch for the arts?

I remember there always used to be a 'good news fluff' piece at the end of the news. I don't recall seeing one of those for a while now.

 

[tantric]

'the news is just a tv show - get past it' -proper propaganda, dilated peoples

 

[Ford]

I'm of the opinion that this opinion https://www.washingtonpost.com/archive/opinions/1995/07/16/the-clicker-culture/82665e0b-0153-4adb-a575-d958d63b4e02/ is one of the best articles on the subject of why our news seems so ridiculous nowadays.

And it is 20 years old. From a guy who doesn't speak (at least publicly).

 

[another1]

The Clicker Culture is funny and suspiciously true. Thank you, I like how it was written.

"So on TV we do sleight of hand with cockroaches and leeches; we run ourselves over with tractor-trailers; we nail innocent bystanders into crates, set them on fire and dump them in the East River."

 

[ronburgundy]

i happen to totally disagree with this assertion - i think it's 100% the other way around.


though of course this is true.

to the OP and the picture: what would happen is that most people would change the channel or turn the TV off for the last 5 minutes of every broadcast.

Why? People don't switch now for the sports? Why would they switch for the arts?

Because people want sports, that's why the news shows it. If the arts were merely foisted on viewers without demand for it, people wouldn't bother watching.

There are now about 8 channels that are 24-7 sports that are included with the most basic package on Direct TV. There are none included that are 24-7 about current happenings in the Arts. That is not some top-down decision made by anti-art execs. Its a response to public interest. Any art channel that was popular would be about the mind mundane, souless, non-intellectual, a-political art out there, because that is the kind that would serve as a form of mindless distraction most people seek from their t.v. viewing.

The news does impact society, even if mostly by reinforcing and satisfying our desire for particular kinds of information. If something isn't in demand, then it can only be included and have an impact, if its "snuck" into the news at random points, where most viewers would just sit through it and what for the coverage they want to return.

 

[gmbteach]

Why? People don't switch now for the sports? Why would they switch for the arts?

Because people want sports, that's why the news shows it. If the arts were merely foisted on viewers without demand for it, people wouldn't bother watching.

There are now about 8 channels that are 24-7 sports that are included with the most basic package on Direct TV. There are none included that are 24-7 about current happenings in the Arts. That is not some top-down decision made by anti-art execs. Its a response to public interest. Any art channel that was popular would be about the mind mundane, souless, non-intellectual, a-political art out there, because that is the kind that would serve as a form of mindless distraction most people seek from their t.v. viewing.

The news does impact society, even if mostly by reinforcing and satisfying our desire for particular kinds of information. If something isn't in demand, then it can only be included and have an impact, if its "snuck" into the news at random points, where most viewers would just sit through it and what for the coverage they want to return.

Fair enough.

However, if a quick segment was introduced at the end of the news about what plays or concerts are coming up, it could start a change.

I know about a lot more happening since I subscribed to lasttix, which tells you about discounted seats at plays etc, and would like to go to more of them. I think that if it was a quick segment about an upcoming play, it might pique some viewers interest.