vision2020@moscow.com: re: More about news...
re: More about news...
Gens Johnson (gens@moscow.com)
Wed, 14 May 1997 08:25:35 -0800
>Mime-Version: 1.0
>Date: Mon, 12 May 1997 13:05:45 -0800
>To: gens@moscow.com
>From: blobster@earthlink.net (Rick Hoover)
>X-UIDL: f2dba83548d2fdacc4484173027a4390
>
> First, thanks for the e-mails. Some interesting points to consider.
> I have a few points that I think you might want to add to 2020's
>discussion.
> Namely, you, I and the members of Vision 2020 are not, what some
>might call, "normal." Perhaps "mainstream" is a better word.
> We do not understand why TV news and major media is the way it is
>because it does not interest us. But it does interest many people. This is
>why it makes money, which is why it is the way it is. ABC News makes money.
>CNN makes money. The Daily News makes money. NPR does not. I don't mean to
>say this is how it should be, I just mean to say this is how it is.
> (Sometimes, money is the last consideration at the university[ies]
>but, unfortunately, we live in a capitalist society. As Winston Churchill
>said, "Capitalism is a horrible system, and it's the best one we have." Or
>something like that. I don't know if I agree with him, but there you have
>it.)
> Advertisers go where the attention is. TV news won't change (and,
>to be fair, neither will newspapers, Oprah, Geraldo or, for that matter,
>ESPN and MTV) until advertisers start going away. Advertisers won't go away
>until the audience goes away.
> The Fox Network (and owner Rupert Murdoch) are perfect examples of
>the point I'm trying to make. Fox has been very successful appealing to the
>lowest common denominator. The height of intellect on that network is "The
>Simpsons," a fine show, but a cartoon nonetheless. Murdoch has spent his
>whole career appealing to the LCD - page 3 (topless) girls in his papers,
>sex, crime, etc. He's worth more than either of us can even imagine, by the
>way.
> Of course, what I've just laid out is the macro picture. We here at
>the Daily News are micro and, therefore, we try a few different things.
>Like I told you before, there are hundreds of little segments in this area,
>and they have little interest in what the other segments are doing. So we
>have a lot of little groups to try and keep happy with little resources and
>if we do a story on one segment, all the other segments scream that we've
>sold out, or we only care about X, or we never cover Y. I have been here
>less than three years, but on four occasons already I have, in one day, had
>a reader tell me we only cover Moscow and have a second reader tell me we
>only cover Pullman. Both of those in one day, and it has happened four
>times (I repeat for emphasis).
> In my case in specific, and in defense of the media in general,
>most of us are trying to do what the audience wants. But the members of the
>audience are rarely universal in their tastes, and they are occassionally
>confusing in expressing their desires.
> I believe the media reflects, or at least attempts to reflect
>society. I like this area because it is a nice place to raise children, but
>it is not mainstream. This is the biggest reason why the national media has
>so little connection with people here.
> Rick
>
>
This archive courtesy of:
First Step Internet