Riddle me this

[Undertoad]

I watch practically nothing BUT TV news as background.

News producers have found that they need to fill 24 hours with information that is cheap to produce and compelling enough to keep interest. This is also true because it's hard to follow important REAL news - that takes people with some smarts, and getting it wrong is bad.

At some point they started to realize that some stories are compelling to people because of their soap-opera-like nature. These stories have a "story arc" with drama, good guys and bad guys, twists and turns. It doesn't hurt that the culture is hungering for more reality, as the popularity of reality shows indicates. These news stories compete with reality shows for public interest and "water cooler time".

And if you're 100% wrong, it doesn't matter. Several "news" analysts and hosts took the usual tack with Jennifer Wilbanks, painting the fiancee as the bad guy. It appears there is no penalty for such bad behavior. Furthermore, the shows that scream how horrible the drama is and take the harshest tone and spin up the soap opera are getting higher ratings.

The worst such offender is Nancy Grace; I don't think there's anyone on TV who disgusts me more, and it appears she is in line to take over the 9pm CNN slot when Larry King inevitably becomes too infirm to hold up his suspenders.

[Troubleshooter]

There's a writing pyramid that I picked up in an english class that seems to apply even more broadly than she realized. It covers three standards to writing, to what you are trying to appeal. In order of increasing difficulty are pathos, ethos, and logos.

logos

^

/-\

/---\

/ethos\

/-------\

/---------\

/---pathos--\

---------------

It's pretty obvious which each applies to; pathos to emotion, ethos to character or personality, and logos to reason. You can see why real news, meaning information with which to reach a reasoned conclusion, is not good business.

[Hobbs]

News outlets jumped-the-shark decades ago and went from informative to ratings whores. It's human nature to want to see bad news. It allows us to say, "jeez, that's terrible. I'm sure glad that's not me." The news agencies (and not just TV news but internet news outlests as well) know this and are exploiting this pretty good. No one wants to tune in to hear or see good news. It's like a traffic accedent, you can't pass it by without having to slow down and gawk. There is also a desire to hang on every bad news item in the world of terrorism/ant-terrorism/Iraq/blah blah blah (thank-you post-9-11 world). And the reason why the young lady in Aruba is getting so much press time is becuase she is very young, very blonde, and very white. The press has ample opportunities to snap some heartbreaking family pictures. "Wow, that's sad. Glad that's not me."

Undertoad hit it right on, too. Everyone is in for the 15 minutes of fame/reality TV stuff. No incentive to do good because everyone who is a knucklehead who the press gives any amount if airtime gets some sort of book deal in the end. This Jennifer Wilbanks, as much of a chowder-head she was, has been rewarded by a "Tell-all" book deal. I'm sure she has an agent of sorts by now as well. Grrrrrrr!

[BigV]

Originally Posted by Undertoad

--snip--News producers have found that they need to fill 24 hours with information that is cheap to produce and compelling enough to keep interest. This is also true because it's hard to follow important REAL news - that takes people with some smarts, and getting it wrong is bad.
--snip

I wish I could have said that. Very nice UT. :Bullseye: (no smilie, rats).