Important issues vs celebrities

I say we send Tiger Woods to sort out Darfur.

Edited by brihard - 05 December 2009 at 1:42pm

IrIsHGunNeR37 wrote: IS it just me or does anyone else find it sad that with all the important issues that are being discussed regarding where our country is going, the media only really seemes to care about the fact that Tiger Woods is now facing marital problems because he screwed up.

Every study involving newshole and time-spent of news topics on pretty much all mediums - print, TV, Web and radio - says you are wrong.

The time spent on celebrity coverage is usually less than 10 percent annually. You can check out the data at www.StateoftheMedia.com

But hey, anecdotal evidence can be fun too. Rawr.

Edited by agentwhale007 - 05 December 2009 at 2:18pm

http://www.ted.com/talks/lang/eng/alisa_miller_shares_the_news_about_the_news.html

agentwhale007 wrote: IrIsHGunNeR37 wrote: IS it just me or does anyone else find it sad that with all the important issues that are being discussed regarding where our country is going, the media only really seemes to care about the fact that Tiger Woods is now facing marital problems because he screwed up. Every study involving newshole and time-spent of news topics on pretty much all mediums - print, TV, Web and radio - says you are wrong. The time spent on celebrity coverage is usually less than 10 percent annually. You can check out the data at www.StateoftheMedia.com But hey, anecdotal evidence can be fun too. Rawr.

I don't think he was attempting to make a factual attack on the media so much as he was complaining about the seemingly inordinate amount of attention to something so trivial in the long run. Sure, there's plenty of coverage on the important stuff, but you can't turn on the radio or news or even the TV guide channel lately without hearing about TW. Its annoying. 

FreeEnterprise wrote: Whale, don't look at the coverage of Climategate vs the Tiger story...     Its not even in the same ballpark...

You're not going to see serious coverage about this 'climategate' thing because no matter how much they deny it, the people who SHOULD be covering it, possess as much of a level of political bias that FOX does.

If you're going to refute that, then explain to me WHY you don't see a major find in one of the greatest debates of our time plastered all over the pages?

jmac3 wrote: Reb Cpl wrote: FreeEnterprise wrote: Whale, don't look at the coverage of Climategate vs the Tiger story...     Its not even in the same ballpark... You're not going to see serious coverage about this 'climategate' thing because no matter how much they deny it, the people who SHOULD be covering it, possess as much of a level of political bias that FOX does. If you're going to refute that, then explain to me WHY you don't see a major find in one of the greatest debates of our time plastered all over the pages? Because it isn't a major find?

I agree with Reb

jmac3 wrote: Maybe when I read something that actually matters I'll think it is a major find.

Do you argue with me for no other reason than to argue?

The entire point I'm trying to make is that you AREN'T going to find 'something that matters' because its not being covered as thoroughly as it should be. (IMO) Do a little digging on your own and you'll see that this is a big deal, hoax, truth, or something in between. 

jmac3 wrote: ...I am not arguing with you. I refuse to read about it because everything I have seen about it has been filled with ridiculous nonsense that makes me not want to read it.

jmac3 wrote: Basically Sneaky. It has nothing to do with the emails themselves, and everything to do with people who are writing about it.

With all due respect, please correct me if I'm wrong but-

You just openly said that you're ignoring the issue because you don't like the people that are writing about it. So, that means if someone you DO like started covering it, then you'd pay attention?

The problem with that is, you don't get balanced information. The issue at hand is being covered {or not covered} by certain outlets because of what's beginning to look like an honest to goodness bias- a bias that you're willingly buying into.