I don't get it. Howard Kurtz anchors CNN's

[Subdivisions]

Reliable Sources which examines the MSM's coverage of news. Often this includes a discussion of the absurdities of wall-to-wall coverage of non-stories like the Paris Hilton dabacle.

And yesterday I even saw CNN ask (paraphrasing) "Why is the public so absorbed with Paris Hilton's plight?"

So, if they know their coverage is absurd and meaningless, why do they do what they do?

[NYCGirl]

1. To get people to watch, that's why. NT

[TreasonousBastard]

2. Surprisingly enough, news is...

actually a business and has ALWAYS been this way. Dig up some old Walter Winchel broadcasts, or newspapers from the 1920s and 30s. Amazing how they worked the scandals of the day, and Hollywood scandals were either written or hidden by the studios and a few all-powerful gossip columnists.

Hearst was the Murdock of his day, but even more ruthless with fewer controls on his behavior and propagandizing.

Complain all you want, but it ain't gonna change.

[Marr]

3. People like Kurtz very often confuse

the corporate media's focus on tabloid infotainment as proof that Americans love tabloid infotainment.

There's an assumption on their part that it's all part of the magical free market- that the media only responds to what the public wants. It's a ludicrous assumption, of course- as half the time it seems that the public at large just wants them to shut the hell up about their chosen tabloid story.

There was one example recently that really stood out for me. The death of Anna Nicole Smith. The big media just would not stop fixating on it, and continually asked the question, 'why are we so fascinated by this?'. And yet, polls were being done that showed the public did not care, was not insterested at all, and was in fact sick of the whole subject.

[flyarm]

4. numerous callers to Wash. Journal this morning complained of paris news this morn!!

people are getting fed up with this crap!!

and getting vocal about it!!

fly

[Le Taz Hot]

5. I've only watched this show a couple of times

but to me, the basic format seemed to be absolving themselves of all wrongdoing regarding ignored REAL stories that affect the nation, lying to the public via being a mouthpiece for the White House and covering non-stories like wayward heiresses famous for being famous.

It's really a Catch-22, isn't it? They give us non-stop stories about Paris Hilton and Anna Nicole Smith, with little else in REAL news, yet they tell us we want this stuff -- like we have a choice on TV.

The choice, of course, is to not waste one's time with TV news. Thank the goddess for the internet.

[90-percent]

6. intelligent TV choices

I'm generally in favor of getting all my news from the internet.

However, I've become quite a Keith Olbermann fan in the last two years, because he actually reports on stuff I see only on the internet!

I'm sure there may be others on TV that cut through the bullshit - like Stewart and Colbert, but my point is that people like me should do all they possibly can to send Keith's ratings THROUGH THE ROOF and show there's a demand for hard factual objective news out here in America still.

Suggestions for what people like me can do for that end would be helpful.

-85% jimmy

[blogslut]

7. Laugh. Laugh, gentlemen. It'll be the only story everyone reads.

Remember that moment from "All the President's Men"? The WP editors were deciding which stories to place where in that day's edition. The Foreign editor (actor John McMartin) mentions a human interest piece on how a series of storms in the Philippines were being blamed on the theft of a statue of Jesus. The other editors laugh and comment on the repetitiousness of 'crazy' articles. The Foreign editor then says:

"Laugh. Laugh, gentlemen. It'll be the only story everyone reads.

Sad as that is, the editor was right. America is one of the few democratic nations in this world where the media is not run by the government. That was intended to be a good thing. Unfortunately the result is that in order to make money, our media sells advertising space and time and subscriptions. US media is not objective and it never was. The Fairness Doctrine once helped to balance the voices politically but the Fairness Doctrine is dead. Regardless, our press and broadcast media have always given plenty of attention to the sensational and they do it because it appeals to the base and that sells soap.

Howard Kurtz is beholden to the people that pay his salary, who in turn, are beholden to their advertisers and audience. His shtick is incidental. As long as the eyes are there, the ads will follow. I imagine they all feel dirty spending inordinate amounts of time on a 26-year old girl with a drinking problem. Will that stop them? Are you kidding? As long as there is Jim Beam and Jack Daniels, there will always be newspeople, covering stories that make them cringe.

[KharmaTrain]

8. You Have Defined Circle Jerk

and no one jerks better than Whorrie Kurtz. It's the typical faux "hand-ringing" these self-abosrbed "pundits" play on this type of story. They pretend to be "outraged...outraged I tell ya" with one hand, and put the money in their back pocket with the other.

Kurtz feels his role is to play either apologist or run interference for his corporate media buddies...while totally conflicted and compromised himself.

[90-percent]

9. and

the obstacle to bringing back the fairness doctrine is................????????????

-85% jimmy

[KharmaTrain]

10. Fairness Doctrine Wouldn't Fix This

It's a misunderstood law that dealt primarily with the access candidates had to broadcast airtime for their campaign commercials and minimal requirements for stations to provide "public affairs" airtime...rules that were eliminiated by DeReg '96...the real legislation that needs to be revised.

The corporate media thrives on controlling the "free flow" of information through a stranglehold of the major cable, television and radio signals...the need is to return these mediums to local ownership and control...a means to increase diversity in ownership, voices and ideas.

Cheeers...