We have CNN, Fox News, MSNBC, and other new organizations. Public opinion is shaped somewhat by the news media: TV, print, and the internet news outlets. What would have happened in WWII if there would have been continious new coverage of D-Day, or the Battle of the Bulge. D-Day: 11,000 (approx) people died that day; how would that been reported? Would the news media declaired that the war was lost? That America has suffered a casualty rate that we could not recover from?
Then there was the "Battle of the Bulge." Would that have been reported as a turning point of the war? Outsmarted by the Germans? What would have been the headlines?
The news is produced, it has a producer. That means someone decides what is important, and what is not; as news. That is why when I watch the news and there is news about Brittney Spears, someone(smarter then me) decided that Brittney is important, and I need to know. I am glad as a nation we are in such good hands and so well informed.
3 comments:
Now, what if around the water cooler tomorrow, someone commented about Brit and you didn't know what they were talking about - wouldn't you feel out of touch - not being able to productively add to the conversation?
You need to be thankful of such insightful journalism, keeping you in touch with reality and the things that make the world go around.
By the way, we were getting ice cream today and one the restaurants had CNN on and we saw the newscast - so I kind of know what is going on. Had that not been on, I could not be commenting on this.
I've often thought that if news coverage in WWII had been like it is today, we would have lost that one.
That is my feeling. The news is bias, but the news media will admit that, after all they are the defenders of free speech.
That is why thay are angry with the bloggers. The news bloggers have taken away some of the power that the elite news media use to hold exclusively.
Post a Comment