October 31, 2007
Media Reports: Public Tunes Out
We often here that the media doesn’t cover political news the way it should. Fact is, we are inundated by important news, so much so, that we, in our busy lives have to overlook most of it, relying on headline scanning for sexy or embattled stories with the widest interest capturing ability. Sex and conflict sell, after all. Facts and figures don’t, but, should.
Items which the public is currently ignoring:
Rep. Charles Rangel is proposing a tax reform bill. An uninteresting story except for how Republicans and Democrats are distancing themselves from it. Tax reform, in detail, is not something either party wants the public to inquire of presidential candidates. Whatever answer they give, in detail, would surely cost them votes.
---
The $915B bomb in consumers' wallets: The 19 to 32% interest bearing credit cards in consumer's wallets are posing, according Fortune Magazine's article, the next economic bubble to burst on the heels of the sub-prime mortgage lending bubble. Yet another issue neither politicians in Congress nor presidential candidates wish to discuss. Usury, or extracting unfair interest rates, used to be the province of the mob and local hoodlums. But it is all legal and fostered by politicians and lending banks like Bank of America, CitiBank, and others.
It was no accident that these usurious rates accompanied bankruptcy reform denying consumers relief from such usury by government sanctioned lending companies. This would seem to be a prime issue for Democrats. But, then, there are those campaign contributions coming from the usury banks to be considered.
---
The Bush Administration and Justice Dep't. were slapped in the face, spat upon, shat upon, and utterly denigrated by a jury for their attempts to prosecute a charitable humanitarian Muslim group in America for supporting terrorism. The Prosecutors claimed the Holy Land Foundation for Relief and Development supported terrorism by sending more than $12 million to charitable groups, known as zakat committees, which build hospitals and feed the poor. The jury would have no part of this unconstitutional attempt to convict persons for charity which aids the poor in areas American politicians fear are spawning grounds for terrorists.
This story is the clearest case yet to be made against the Bush Administrations absolute panic and shredding of the U.S. Constitution in response to the 9/11 attacks. Though the story was covered in the NY Times, very few American citizens have any awareness of the case or jury outcome. Given Rudy Guiliani's mirroring the views of the Bush administration on ignoring the Constitution and civil liberties in order to get the people he wants to get, this story should high on voter's considerations. The media did its job. The public hasn't time or interest in its importance.
---
Rudy Giuliani has been caught in yet another lie as exposed by FactCheck. Giuliani in attempts to halt the assault upon Americas broken health care system, tried to attack the socialized health care systems in other modern democracies. In a radio ad running this week he says:
"I had prostate cancer, five, six years ago," the Republican presidential candidate says in the ad. "My chance of surviving prostate cancer, and thank God I was cured of it, in the United States, 82 percent. My chances of surviving prostate cancer in England, only 44 percent under socialized medicine.”But, The Giuliani is counting on the fact that the public paid attention to Giuliani's ad, and won't ever hear that the ad is based on false, misleading, and convoluted interpretation and representation. But, since the Supreme Court upheld politician's "right" to lie to the public recently, this appears to be a non-issue.
---
Seven year ban on internet taxes Bill passed and Pres. Bush is expected to sign it. Good news, therefore, not newsworthy, right? But, this story is monumental for voters in many regards. First is the fact that 9 states who do tax the internet allowed to continue doing so, which raises equal application of the law issues. Second, and more important for voters is that many Republicans wanted a permanent ban, while many Democrats couldn't resist the temptation to try to tax everything including the checking your email. Given the potential for Democrats being in power in 7 years, this story should be noticed by voters and filed for future reference.
---
There's more waste, fraud, and abuse news covered by the Wash. Post. It appears federal employees are using sick leave for vacation time, rather than give those unused tax dollars back to the taxpayers.
---
But, perhaps the biggest unread and unnoticed news story this week is that the U.S. Supreme Court is willing to hear Exxon/Mobil's argument that the $2.5 billion punitive damages for the Exxon Valez oil spill in 1989 in Alaska are unfair and unwarranted. The lower courts agreed with the plaintiff's statement:
"Unlike any other shipowner of which we are aware, Exxon placed a relapsed alcoholic, who it knew was drinking aboard its ships, in command of an enormous vessel carrying toxic cargo across treacherous and resource-rich waters."This could be a landmark watershed case for American consumers. If Exxon/Mobil is successful in the Supreme Court, the message to corporations will be, stall and litigate punitive damages as long as possible, and in the end, the arguments that years old punitive awards will be viewed as unjust, and the argument that the punitive award would only be passed on to consumers will make more sense as the crime fades in juror's memories. In other words, corporations will have less reason to be concerned for irresponsible actions toward the public interest.
---
These stories, all covered in the last few days, demonstrate for me that the Mainstream Media is doing its job quite well. What isn't functioning too well is the voter's and public attention to the volume of information being streamed into the public on a daily basis. Most of these stories are not front page stories, but, they are being covered. The public that scans the headlines is therefore, left ignorant and grossly uninformed, but, not because of any failure by mainstream media. Only the sexy (Britney Spears) and violent (California wildfires) will usually make the headlines. To be informed, one must turn the page.
Posted by David R. Remer at October 31, 2007 09:22 AMActually, our TV news is mostly fluff…feel good stuff…a few car accidents…a couple shots of a school board meeting…but not a darned thing that is a continued story, updated, nor anything in depth…if it makes a good picture, it hits the news…this is why it is so important that we have good newspapers that dig in depth into the truth of what politicians have said…into the truth of the impact of our laws is…into the impact on regular working people of the economic policies of our “government”…
We have no real idea of what is going on in the world…not at home, not overseas…we’re not uneducated, but we are uninformed!
Posted by: Rachel at October 31, 2007 11:15 AMRachel, true enough that if one relies on local TV news, one cannot be even close to well informed.
The research however, indicates that we are indeed under educated in civics, history, law, economics, personal finance, geography, world and American current events. Not that we need to be experts in these fields by any means, but, we should, as citizen’s of a democracy, be capable of reading stories in media for these areas and comprehend their import on us.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2007 11:30 AM
It is a sad fact that democracy is failing in the U.S. because the largest faction says, I don’t give a damn, just leave me alone and let me live my life. They don’t watch political news and they feel no obligation to support democracy by at least voting. I do not beleive that this attitude has anything to do with politicians, the two party system, or wheither the media does or does not do a good job of reporting political events. It has to do with human nature, many people are just not interested in politics.
jlw, while your cynical view is applicable to many, there are many more who tune out because:
1) They know they will be told lies
2) They believe politicians will do whatever they hell they please anyway
3) They know government employees are the least effective communicators when it comes to relating complex issues to the public, and 4
4) The media is either biased or shies away from interpreting government issues in layman terms, leaving it to the editorialists who are often biased.
If we would correct most or all of these conditions, a vast number more citizens would pay attention. There is vast research in this field of communication to demonstrate what I say is valid and true. Just look at the fundamentals of effective public communication and compare those to what the public receives. This explains 10’s of millions of citizens tuning out, and of course, their lack of educational preparation in these arenas accounts for 10’s of millions more.
Posted by: David R. Remer at October 31, 2007 12:54 PMGreat post, David.
I agree with you completely.
I do not beleive that this attitude has anything to do with politicians, the two party system, or wheither the media does or does not do a good job of reporting political events. It has to do with human nature, many people are just not interested in politics.That is true for a large number.
Why the paradox?
Like you say: because of human nature.
The problem, in my opinion, is that people expect raw information to be interesting to others for its own sake because it’s interesting to them. Another problem is that in the absence of cultivated storytelling and narrative analysis skills, some folks rely on the circular argument of ratings to justify what they broadcast.
Or, put another way, Reporters need to learn how to integrate the information that allows them to find particular information compelling into news about that particular information.
They also need to stop relying on what has been selling to indicate what people are interested in. Too much of the same old stuff can become a reason to tune out, literally and figuratively.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 1, 2007 02:22 AMStephen D., good points. I mean, they make ex-politicians these days anchors and news commentators, having no education or background in journalism. But, the fact that the News departments of profit broadcast corporations insist on making profit with the news programming is a major part of my tuning out most of it. I want objective news, not advertising and sales jobs.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 1, 2007 09:24 AMDavid… I must completely disagree with you article…
Britney Spears is just not that sexy…
Posted by: Doug Langworthy at November 1, 2007 04:40 PMWell, what they haven’t figured out is a sort of zen thing. You can’t hit the target by aiming at it. When you pass something meaningful to the audience, it changes them. Having changed them, that same message is no longer as fresh, and not necessarily as powerful. Maybe some time ago, all the news about murder and celebrities was meaningful and interesting, but the sustained focus on these subjects have made them less interesting.
The modern corporate impulse, in the interests of making this stuff dependably profitable, is to keep the focus there. This is predicated on the idea that if a little can be profitable, a lot can be more profitable. What they fail to consider is the emergent feedback-driven nature of the system. Well maybe not fail to consider, rather beat their heads continually against the nature of the system, trying to make straight what God made crooked.
This is not unlike the situation with the politicians. It’s people seeking absolute control over something that will not be absolutely controlled, which will actually react to attempts at control by sometimes turning itself completely on its head.
Ultimately, the best way to sell news is to inform people about things they would like to know in a way that is clear and well-formed. However, it’s more expensive to be active seekers of information, rather than passive receivers.
But hey, you got to spend money to make money.
Posted by: Stephen Daugherty at November 2, 2007 09:42 AMDavid, excellent topic well done. It seems to me the media is like a wide open space and to find the real and important issues, which are there, you really have to know what you are hunting for and how to find it. Then once you have found it you then need to ascertain if the information presented is an accurate reflection of the facts or disinformation. Many Americans dont wont or cant take the time to delve this deep nor take it upon themselves to sort out the truths from the fictions. Whether this is intentionally caused by the powers that be or just the way things are is beyond me, but it does seem to favor the few over the many.
Posted by: j2t2 at November 2, 2007 01:15 PMDoug, you are right.
j2t2, we live in a specialized culture. You don’t repair your own car, you take it to a mechanic. You don’t repair your own plumbing, you call a plumber. You don’t assess your own political news, you follow your party’s or political guru’s advice on what to think and how to think it. See how civilized and advanced we have become through specialization?
Specialization is fine for economic advantage through division of labor. But, it was never intended to be a substitute for education, self-development, independent thinking and voting. In fact, that is how we lost our democracy to the wealthy special interests, we became followers of them instead of opponents to them.
Posted by: David R. Remer at November 2, 2007 11:44 PMHTML Formatting Tips:
<strong>bold text</strong>
<em>italicize text</em>
<u>underline text</u>
<strike>strike text</strike>
<a href="http://domain.com/link">link text</a>
<blockquote>quote text</blockquote>
By clicking the "Post" button you agree to abide by the Rules For Participation.
