Re: [MLUG - DISCUSSION] [POLITICS] what next?

[Mike Miller <EMAIL:PROTECTED>]

On Sun, 4 Dec 2005, Vern Green wrote:

> > People in the 50-60 year-old range are self-absorbed
>
> Well, lets follow the track. First, 50-60 year olds fall into a category 
> called the baby-boomers. These baby-boomers have been characterized by 
> more than just a few people as self-centered, self-seeking, self 
> interested, self-absorbed, and self indulgent. Paul Begala held that 
> claim when he was adviser to Bill Clinton. Just do a little research you 
> can find books on the topic.

You are probably thinking of un-researched opinion like this piece:

http://www.superseventies.com/worstgen.html


> > Self-absorption causes people to fail to research their news sources
>
> What exactly is self-absorption? Isn't it a description of a person who 
> is absorbed in their own interests and thoughts? It would be easy, 
> although perhaps a little dangerous, to say that a self-absorbed person 
> would be more inclined to seek out news that supports their claim over 
> many others.
>
> I am not saying that other demographic groups do not have the propensity 
> towards self-absorption, but there has been a lot of information 
> published about the phenomena in the baby-boomer generation.

Feel free to present data on measures of self-absorption and surveys of 
the general population.  Are these cross-sectional or longitudinal 
studies?


> > People in the 50-60 year-old range watch more network news than do 
> > other age groups
>
> I will have to dig up the data on this,

While you're at it, dig up the data on everything else too.


> I heard the ratings being read on NPR once, I think it was NPR, but I 
> cannot find the data now. The only data I can find right now is the 
> 25-54 ratings for cable news. Nothing on the networks, but I will find 
> it at some point.

I would like to know if the news is slanted in different ways for 
different groups.  That would be interesting to know.  I am sure that the 
content is different for different age groups.  More on Medicare for older 
viewers, more on Iraq for younger viewers, etc.


> > When Walter Cronkite was a news anchorman, journalists had more 
> > integrity than they have today
> >
> > What comes out of "the major news titles" today is "shill"
> >
> >
> > But this is all just bullshit that you made up because it helps to 
> > defend your earlier inane arguments.
>
> Yeah, well Walter Cronkite happens to agree with me to an extent anyway. 
> He recognizes that a lot of the news presented today is to garner 
> ratings. So is it bullshit? Well maybe, but there are again many 
> affluent people who would not disagree with me.
>
> http://www.azcentral.com/arizonarepublic/news/articles/0417cronkite17.html

Most of it is not network news either.  From your article, Cronkite says

   he would like to see a newscast based in part on PBS' Newshour with Jim
   Lehrer, a show he calls "a must" for daily viewing.

I watch that show every day.  You don't.  That's one difference between 
us.  Cronkite would like to see less fake pseudonews about Hollywood 
celebrities and homicides and more genuine in-depth coverage of the news 
of the day.  Me too, but I can understand why we aren't getting that kind 
of news.  I get mine on Lehrer News Hour and I don't have time to watch 
many hours of news per day.  I also get some funny news from Daily Show.



> > > If my group is liberal democrats in their 50 - 60s that think the Iraq 
> > > war is a bad idea, do I really want to put on a story that might upset 
> > > them and have them go look somewhere else for their news. I cannot 
> > > afford to keep the news on TV if I do not have advertisers. So I pitch 
> > > to the crowd that I know is tuning in so to keep them tuning in week 
> > > after week. It is too bad really, but after all it is all business!
> >
> > That kind of concern is not one that I have heard voiced about the 
> > major news media, but it is easy to see why that kind of thinking would 
> > affect Fox News.
>
> You have never heard the network news talk about sustaining or trying to 
> get back their ratings? What do you think it is all about if you have? 
> If you haven't heard of such a thing, then again, perhaps you need to 
> expand you information intake. The link I posted above talks about it. 
> So much of today is about ratings and business in journalism.

You are the first one to tell me that anyone believes it is about 
distorting the facts for the viewer so that the news will be more 
appealing.  I haven't heard that before.  I have heard that they want to 
replace old news anchors with better looking younger ones.  I think they 
want to change the issues they cover -- like adding more lame human 
interest stories.  I haven't heard anyone, except for you, say that they 
might want to present appealing views about the war in Iraq, for example.

Mike

_______________________________________________
discussion mailing list
EMAIL:PROTECTED
http://mlug.missouri.edu/mailman/listinfo/discussion