Imagine, for a second, the collective efforts of the media utilized over the past few years towards uncovering the fate of a select few gorgeous, young women, being directed at uncovering the next target of a terrorist attack. Imagine the energy spent determining the next big species-that-attacks (killer bees? Sharks? Locusts?), being aimed at the next big accounting fraud to potentially affect the entire economy.
Of course I understand that the media is large enough to focus on more than one story at a time, but don't tell me, after watching the news and reading newspapers for a few weeks, that the priorities are anywhere near straight. Slow news days happen, but don't tell me the media isn't content to match laziness with its viewers when it can.
You see, there really is no such thing as a "slow news day." The seeds of tomorrow's big news days are happening all the time, and it is supposed to be the media's responsibility to uncover them before they're blatantly obvious.
- THE LULL OF COMMERCIAL SATISFACTION -
But its not about anecdotes and slow news days. Its about pandering to the lowest common denominator. People don't tend to prioritize news on their own, and while people will question the facts and specifics of news stories, they don't generally question their priority relative to each other. We assume news professionals have done that well enough for us.
But they don't. From a commercial standpoint, they don't need to. Attractive news reporting may need to be somewhat truthful (I'll skip over the obvious caveats on that one), but certainly it doesn't have to be relevant. The media however, unlike entertainment, are supposed to remain true to the commercially extraneous responsibility of taking that extra step beyond merely what people want, and interjecting some of what they need.
Ahh, but enough of this philosophical babble! Can someone give me some more information about Jennifer Wilbanks' apparently fabulous choice of wedding dress?
