Comments on: On The Media’s Sudden Focus On Mine Safety

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 21:10:14 +0000

But Rudi, blond girls in distress are ‘sexy.’ Dead middle-aged men under the earth stink, literally. They don’t fit the demographics.

By: Rudi

Rudi — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 15:07:00 +0000

This story merits more attention than missing “blonde girls” in foreign countries.

By: Jim Satterfield

Jim Satterfield — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 01:15:34 +0000

Joe notes that the primary motivator in determining news coverage now is determined

With only X amount of reporters and X amount of time, which stories to you do? Usually, these days, the ones with huge audience appeal. Turn on cable TV and youâ€™re getting huge chunks of time on the mine story. Two months ago it would have been hard to sell editors a story on mine safety.

And why is that? Sing along now…”Profit, profit, uber alles.”. The things that make for good journalism are ranked at most in second place in corporate news. Advertising is number one, bad news that makes for big audiences is number two, not insulting the really big advertisers too much is third…can anyone think of what else comes ahead of good journalism at those corporations?

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Sat, 18 Aug 2007 00:29:00 +0000

Casey- good pts 6-9.

By: CaseyL

CaseyL — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 23:16:48 +0000

Allow me to also add some points:

1. There is no longer any factual or historical context. Events happen in an eternal “now,” allowing whoever has the microphone to set the terms of the story with little or no rebuttal. To do anything else would mean anchoring the story in data no one’s had a chance to spin. In today’s stenographic ‘journalism,’ putting anything in the story other than what official spokepersons tell you is considered ‘bias.’

2. The reporters themselves have no technical background in what they’re covering; or, if they do, they still only repeat what official spokespersons say. They don’t contradict the official story. That, too, is considered ‘bias.’

3. Once there are official spokespersons, reporters don’t look for other sources. It doesn’t matter if the official person is a flack whose every word is compromised; s/he is official, and therefore credible. No one else is.

3a. The collection of official spokespersons and high-ranking flacks comprises the Permanent Rolodex. Reporters go back to their trusty Permanent Rolodex whenever they need a comment, or background, on a story. It doesn’t matter if the sources in the Permanent Rolodex are compromised, inaccurate, or outright liars. They’re still the only go-tos. No one else gets heard.

By: cosmoetica

cosmoetica — Fri, 17 Aug 2007 21:54:19 +0000

Let me add a 5th point: the public simply does not care. let’s see- before this was the Mpls bridge collapse- what? When’d that happen? before that was wildfires and flooding. What’jou talkin’ ’bout Willis? Before that it was Cho going aspeshit.

People don’t care about mine safety any more than they care about global warming, as long as their Ipods and blackberries can insulate them.

Same w elections. People always complain of the asses elected, yet never say, ‘Oh, yeah, we’se elected the asses.’