This is the market getting more efficient. This is the market learning how to deliver more of what people want (Sarah Palin) and less of what they don't want (the difficulties of adjusting Medicare payment rates). If policy stories begin swamping servers, people will hire more policy reporters. But there's not much evidence of that happening. That's not to say there's no room for substantive policy coverage. But the more eyeballs matter, the less substantive coverage there'll be, and I don't think it'll be the fault of reporters. A lot of the policy coverage that happens right now exists not because the audience wants it, but because the media decides they need it. As the market becomes competitive, that type of reportorial paternalism will become less and less viable.Tough medicine. It's always more comforting to think that some all-powerful being (rich white men, the media, big business etc.) has brainwashed "The People." But when you start delving into this stuff, you realize that often those institutions are performing in the service of actual human beings, many of them not so rich, and not so powerful.
"The People" aren't noble. And they aren't evil, either. After dealing with my own writing, with my own family, and with my own person, I find it difficult to muster the energy to master the details of climate change. And I write for a living. But damn if I can barely keep my living room clean.
I thought about this last week while attempting to follow through on a promise to my family, to cook more. I grew up in household where my Dad cooked. My cornbread game is not to be slept on. But cooking right, and cleaning right is hard work, and takes a lot of time. There is a reason people go to McDonald's every night for dinner. Perhaps the reason isn't a good one, but it's not stupid or pathological.
Ditto with political coverage. The shouting heads exist for a reason--we invented them.
The Beautiful Struggle: A Father, Two Sons, and an Unlikely Road to Manhood 
Yeah, pretty much
Sorry, no. The market serves our values it does not create them.
Adversarialism not collaboration, is the appropriate model of the press. It has a concrete ethical obligation to dig before it has an abstract moral obligation to be "objective" This is so because as history as shown us objectivity is impossible. Discord is not respectable in this country. It needs to be.We have an ideology in this country that defends an ideal of objectivity rather than engagement. He said/She said is the natural cheapening of argument that develops in an environment where saying anything out of the ordinary call be seen by one person or another as biased. Here is good journalism and its description: Nir Rosen in Afghanistan
"cooking right, and cleaning right is hard work, and takes a lot of time."
Not really. At least, not all at once. And multitasking the cooking is easy.
Cooking cornbread takes about 5 to 10 minutes of prep time, done while the oven preheats, and 25 minutes of cook time. While it's cooking you can start whatever is done on the stove. Get the salad together. So the total time to cook dinner is an hour, at most.
How long does it take to get to Mickey Dees, order the food, and sit down with it?
Weekends, or whenever you have more spare time, is when you do stews or other things that can be done in bulk, and mostly just have to keep an eye on it. Beef stew, or chili, takes maybe half an hour of prep, then you pop it in the oven for 3 hours while you do something else. Heck, do the cornbread then too, and store it in the fridge. Microwave it before serving.
I've got beans in the crock pot right now for tomorrow's beans and rice dinner.
Further: Clean while you go. While the cornbread is cooking you clean the mixing bowls.
Being able to cook for myself cuts food costs way down which is a godsend when I've been unemployed for a couple of months.
Yeah this is one of those theoretical things that works in a vaccuum, but you add little x factors like kids and it all goes haywire.
As a bachelor it works fine, though.
EXACTLY! My wife and I have an 8 month old girl and time is definitely not on our side. Every week we swear we're going to get the whole house cleaned from top to bottom. So far we're batting close to triple zeros! Still I'm optimistic that well get it together.
Right. Thanks for the advice. All my problems are solved.
Ha! I find a very similar difficulty in cooking and cleaning, and I have mostly chalked it up to the type of personality that I have. That doesn't mean I don't clean ever, or that I don't cook ever, it's just I have had to learn that those things are my weak points: I have to nag myself pretty hardcore to get those things done. I really will find plenty of time to do the things i like to do, and just come more naturally such as: writing, reading, blogging, playing my videogames, listening to music and talking to my friends and family. i would rather sit down and pay my bills and figure out my checkbook than to clean or cook. I'll wash clothes and run around town doing errands for myself and others, but to cook and clean have always been hard for me. Plus ya know, I work full-time, go to the gym as much as I can, and have a spritual practice that's important to me. I think some people have this thing where they enjoy cooking or cleaning more, or are in a situation where they have to do those things. Like the suggestions above that wiredog made, i know about all those multitasking tricks applied to other activities such laundry, dusting furniture, making business phone calls, etc. But certain cleanign and cooking is just like, I don't know.... I don't have the inclination to cook or clean a lot, nor do I have to (I live alone), so what do I end up with? Half-ass cleaning and half-ass cooking.
I love to cook-- therefore it is easy and I do it every night. And I clean up as I go.
I hate hate hate to dust, vacuum, clean the bathroom, etc. If it was not for my long suffering husband, these jobs would not get done.
My husband hates hates hates to pay bills. I am very good at it. Therefore I do it. Telling him to just do it, and by the way, clean up as he goes, would simply result in unpaid, unorganized bills.
Work with what you've got.
See, I bet you didn't even know you were doing it wrong.
That sounds like a great plan. I have been trying to operate on that plan for about 20 years.
I should have said "to no avail" - ha!
Hell, I really like to cook, became an expert at 30-minute meals after my daughter was born, and I'm not identifying with the ease of quick cooking and quick cleaning. Mind, I think kids are a big part of it--by the time they're big enough that their assistance is actually useful they're big enough to have identified it as work.
It takes about 5-10 minutes to get a dinner from Mickey D's on the way home and about 5 minutes to eat it. It also takes little energy or thought, so it's much easier than cooking a meal, even if it was the same amount of time.
I think it's also an initial hump to get over when cooking as well. Once you are good at it, it doesn't take as long but at first it does. You also must go to the store a lot in the beginning. Once you get used to it, you have a lot of ingredients and know which ones you just need to have around to make your meals. Grocery shopping takes up a bit of time as well, so it's not just cooking the meals you need to budget time for.
If I have no food in the house what's faster and cheaper, to grab fast food or to go the store buy things to make for dinner, cook it and clean up? Some of those items will be used 10-20 times, but there's a much larger upfront investment in time and money.
Beef stew, or chili, takes maybe half an hour of prep, then you pop it in the oven for 3 hours while you do something else.
If I'm hungry now, 3 hours is a long time. It will result in a few meals, but this is one example of cooking needs a larger upfront investment of time and money.
i disagree somewhat. the opposing ideas about the media giving the public what they want vs. the people asked for it is growing akin to the question "did the chicken or the egg come first?".
i don't recall a rallying cry for more commentary on the news from the people. were people really wondering what news broadcasters really thought of the news? no. i think newscasters wanted their opinion known because they felt self-important and thought the public was interested in their subjective thoughts. they took a public platform and abused it to gain notoriety.
Rush Limbaugh et. al. get pretty decent ratings. *Someone* must want what he's doing.
Ratings, ratings, ratings. People vote with their eyes on these commentary shows, and they've been beating out the traditional news hour for years.
katherine and geoff: yes, the people watch and keep the ratings high. my point was that people did not ask for it. i do not think there was a desire for important social and foreign issues to be reduced to a game of insults and who can shout the loudest. the american people are partially culpable, but media corporations own more of the blame. news organizations know they are doing a disservice to their field, the public, the idea of debate, and actually, to the government process.
it's all a game exploitation and money.
I'd be interested in your thoughts on electronic media then. Same with Ulysses' below. He argues that there's basically a centralized cabal of rich people feeding news down our throats.
I say we open up and say "ah". We want it. But I don't think this POV accounts for the groundswells on the internet that build out entirely independent of the MSM. And these groundswells are built by people, not in smoke-filled back rooms.
Hell, half the time the MSM is struggling to catch up. So who's writing the news these days? The birthers or the journos at CNN?
The MSM is privately owned and controlled by people who occupy the top of the wealth pyramid. I gotta think that they have significant input into what gets on air and what doesn’t.
They have significant input into what gets on the the air initially, but as far as what stays on the air, that's up to the viewers.
So we get a revolving door of reality shows and American Idol wannabees, but virtually no investigative reporting or policy analysis.
I really doubt that that investigative reporting or policy analysis would garner the sort of ratings that would make it worthwhile for MSM TV execs to put it on the air, in terms of mass consumption. There are niche markets for that sort of thing, there will always be some people that are going to watch POV, Frontline, or something like that. But on a mass scale? I doubt it.
In a somewhat related vein, there are television shows that garner tons of critical acclaim and are considered high-quality, but never got off the ground ratings wide, and have since been sacked. Arrested Development comes to mind. With all the critical acclaim that 30 rock gets it's not that big of a hit (not bad, but no TV blockbuster).
I assume that if no one wanted the dry wonky stuff, why would CSPAN even exist? But that kind of thing on NBC wouldn't make it.
Reality shows are really cheap to make btw. Another attractive reason for TV execs to make them (amongst others).
In terms of information consumption and making education decisions about policy, I find living in California with the propositions that we have to be extremely challenging. I have a masters degree, i am a politics and public policy blog junkie, and I still can't even understand what the heck is going on fully. I have a similar experience with cap and trade issues and all the ins and out of the healch care policy debates, and I actually give a damn...I have some sympathy for people who don't really care, or are too busy with work, kids, cooking and cleaning, caretaking of parents, just living life, etc. than to pay attention to in-depth investiagative reporting or policy analysis. I personally like investigative reportin and policy analysis and try to pay attention as much as possible, not only because I think i "should" (because I do think I should as a member of a democratic republic I think it is my duty to be an informed citizen) but also because it's enjoyable. Perhaps consuming investigative reporting and policy analysis for some is like eating broccoli: good for you, but not really fun. But for me? It's pretty tasty.
Actually, I don't think it has anywhere near as much impact as you think it does. Reporters and editorial staff aren't the "top of the wealth pyramid", and micro managing is not something people who're that wealthy have time for.
The micro managing is done by reporters and editorial staff who are well aware that ownership won’t tolerate content that is inimical to its interests.
I think "what people watch" is a much more likely explanation than "what the evil overlords permit them to show."
But there was a change in attitude--back in the Good Night and Good Luck days news wasn't expected to make money; it was something you did to have a serious tv network, public service of a sort. Now "does it make money" is the first question.
Tangentially related, one spot blogging is really filling in is local news--if you want to grapple with how you should vote on local issues chances are your local paper, if you even have one, is reporting "Person A says this is good :) but Person B says it will be bad :(" and you need someone with a grasp of the issues filling in.
Growing up at a time when CNN was just a baby, I barely kept up with any news. Sometimes I would watch with a parent. I was aware of the unspoken ethos - a good citizen kept up with current events, watched the news, read the paper. I've grown into this ethos, obviously. But that's another story.
What I noticed in those nascent years was that there was evening news, 1/2 hour shows... and then there was MacNeil/Lehrer on PBS, a full hour, and utterly incomprehensible to my young mind. I did recognize it as 'elite' news, the sort of stuff you would watch if you were really smart, knew where Lebanon was, understood that Indira Gandhi was the second Gandhi that had been shot (and not deja vu), and could follow the intricacies of Iran/Contra.
My point simply is, there's lots of news that's too bewildering and abstruse to be 'marketed'. It's nice that we have the BBC World Service and the Economist, but it can't be all things to all people. Thus, not for commercial consumption.
In the same vein, my daughter showed me something on YouTube last night about how dumb Americans are. It was a British reporter interviewing "average" Americans on the street with simple questions - at least questions that should be simple. Such as "Name a country that begins with the letter U." (typical answer: "Utah") or "What is the religion of Israel." (typical answer: "Muslim"). How about "What is the religion of Buddhist Monks?" (typical answer: blank stare). It was funny, yet deeply depressing.
Do I think everyone in this country is dumb? No. But over the past few decades, our culture seems to have made it less shameful to be dumb. It's almost like a badge of honor. There is no embarrassment from these people that they do not know some very basic facts about the world. So, yeah, the people I saw in that video last night are going to watch a reality show or O'Reilly before they read a policy feature story in the NYT. The question is, what is their percentage? On my good days, I think it's very low, on my not so good days, I think it's not so low... I mean we are talking about a country that "elected" W at least once.
You do realize it's not very difficult to assemble a montage of people sounding dumb on TV, even if 99 percent of the answers the reporter gets from people are correct?
It's called "editing."
I know what you're saying. I guess in my idealized version of the world, there wouldn't be a single person they stopped on the street who could not think of the United States as a country that begins with the letter U.
Now I feel pretty stupid for coming up with "Ukraine."
Damn, I was thinking Uganda
I came up with Uganda and Uraguay, and would have hit Ukraine before I thought of United Anything. (States, Arab Emirates, etc.)
On the one hand there is certainly a strong anti-elite strain best exemplified by Palin and Joe the Plumber's fans last fall. On the other hand, ask any nerd--disdain for smarts has deep roots here. If anything I think it's gotten better over the past decades for average people, but with the left-behinders feeling increasingly isolated and angry about it.
Uruguay.
United States didn't even make it into my first three. United Kingdom either.
Deborah, we think alike!
The Utah thing threw me off for a bit. I finally came up with Uzbekistan. Seriously.
I suspect that makes me more crazy than smart.
Ha ha - you guys are funny. Okay, I admit. I came up with Uruguay first, too. I was just trying to make a point. ;-)
I disagree a LOT. The "people" accept what is placed before them for consumption. The people absolutely did not want to hear about Watergate, or My Lai, or any one of dozen stories from that era. But journalists (hey, remember them?), having discovered that the story being told by governmental representatives, was palpably distant from the truth, made telling the uncomfortable truth, their mission. Today there is far too little serious journalism and far too much of that which is not much more than another outlet for the official story.
The impact of consolidation of ownership among radio, television, and print sources cannot be underestimated. How else do you account for the lack of interest by most of the major providers in the truth or falsehood of the WMD "story arc". The idea that the evidentiary surround for this idea was an invented story came up again and again, and yet not one journalistic outlet with any serious financing for investigation pursued it. While not subscribing to the "evil media mastermind" scenario, it is clear that astonishing amounts of money has been (and continues to be) spent to convince "the people" of things we KNOW are not remotely true. Literally billions, spent and to a great degree, in service to one political end of the spectrum.
There has always been "info-management". What there hasn't historically been, is the ability to flood the "info space" with a uniform message tailored to the specifics of the various audience segments (narrow casting). The people have little to say in what they are fed or its flavor.
I don't know about this, because now information sources are so widespread and so readily available. It's a bit of a truism nowadays, but still: anyone can google anything, anywhere,anytime and write anything really. you see how tnc is always telling us to write our own blogs! (i write that with some jest of course) Not everyone has internet access, but millions of people in this country do, and millions of these people can get access to libraries of information essentially very easily. Information is becoming less and less "controllable" in comparions to what it once was when knowledge dissemination was primarily confined to paper. I don't think your argument is as true as it use to be...
An interesting point someone made about The Economist is that most of its content is readily available on the internet...if you have a couple of days to google and are good at filtering through all the stuff you didn't want.
I think there's a lot of serious journalism. There's also a lot of unserious editorializing that's getting more attention than it deserves, sad to say. Information on the WMD issue was out there at the start. I had no problem hearing from actual sources with real facts. But they were drowned for a lot of people by opinion "journalism".
For all of you complaining about the lack of investigative journalism and how it's not the population's fault, I'd really wonder how much time you spend watching Frontline or CSPAN or 60 minutes. If that's the bulk of your TiVo, please let me know.
Feel free to throw my words back in my face. But if you'd rather watch Mythbusters, Daily Show, CNN, Biggest Loser, Bachelor, Real Housewives, or any of the other "infotainment" out there, then you're "part of the problem".
Which isn't a bad thing. Just sayin'.
"journalists sometimes pull the objectivity stunt"
Thank you for admitting that "objectivity" is a myth at best, and a stunt at its worst. I'm so tired of wading through articles that give "equal time" to a rational person with facts (who may or may not be wrong) and a crazy person who is making things up, and acting as if they both have equally valid cases to make.
While there was something to be said about the dispassionate "just the facts" approach of old-school journalists like Kronkite and Murrow, it's worth noting that it was their moments of passion, the moments when they couldn't help but let a little human emotion seep through, that we will remember them most fondly for all these years after...
For myself, I found that, the more I cooked at home, the less I could stomach fast food. I understand why people do it. I just can't. It tastes like crap.
I stopped eating fast food - and stopped feeding it to my daughter as soon as I read Fast Food Nation several years ago. I dare anyone to read that book and keep up the fast food habit. That stuff is not food.
We eat fast food only on long road trips, considerably aided by the lack of any outlets in my town--driving to the next town is definitely more work than McDonald's is worth. But honesty compels me to admit that once my children were introduced to McD's they were enchanted. And my neighbor bemoaned that the other preschool moms invited them to McDonald's, where oh whoa her sophisticated risotto eater would never willingly consume the food....and the next time Wee Mr. Risotto was in my car he caught sight of the sign and launched into an ode to McDonald's and its many pleasures. The food is tolerable to most adults given other considerations--limited time, long trip, etc--and adored by most kids. It's a powerful combination.
This spring we were doing a drive from Boston to North Carolina in one long day, and thought we would stop for lunch at a pizza place--an extra 20 to 30 minutes, it'd be fine. 1.75 hours later we staggered out, after everything that could possibly go wrong went wrong, swearing our next stop would be along the lines of a McDonalds.
My kids adore McDonalds. I let them eat it with their grandparents, who I have no control over anyway.
I agree that fast food is much easier to eat on a trip, but I have solved this problem by stopping at rest stops (possible in the summer only here in the Northeast) to make peanut butter sandwiches for my kids. With apples and saltines, this makes a belly-filling stop that can actually include some playtime as well. And it's cheaper, to boot.
Btw, even my pickiest eater will eat risotto. It's rice, for crap's sake. what kid doesn't eat rice?
Yup, they have spent many many millions of dollars to attract and retain their little customers, who they hope will grow into lifelong users. I know it's not easy -- my daughter loved McDonald's too! It took a good six months to wean her off the stuff. It's not like I spent my evenings after I nixed fast food from our menu plan making lovingly prepared all organic dinners - far from it! - I just avoided the yellow arches.
So, Media, how's that workin' out for ya?
Pablum over policy in the news? Meh, it has ever been thus in our republic. I think it was "Citizen Kane" (a fictional character based on Wm. Randolph Hearst) who said something like "you supply the pictures, I'll supply the war." The term "yellow journalism" was coined almost 100 years ago. Even Edward R. Murrow got better ratings for his "People Magazine"-type tv interviews with celebraties, than for his hard news content as important as the later was.
The biggest difference today is the volume and velocity of "information" available electronically. One of the most presicient and best explorations of the impact of electronic media in the U.S. is the Kazan/Shulberg movie "A Face in Crowd" released I think in 1957. Said to be based in part on the career of early tv host Arthur Godfrey, today this really fine flick could just as easily be based on the career of the odious Glen Beck. It is what it is...and what it was.
I completely agree, I think we get tainted by the glamourization of Woodward and Bernstein and Edward R. Murrow into thinking that everyone was so much better informed. I remember hearing that we would never have gotten into Iraq if Uncle Walter were still on the job. This overlooks that we got snowed into Vietnam under the reporting of our great elders. I hear that the consolidated M$M is the reason we don't have national health care, yet we didn't have when there was a much more regionalized and less consolidated media back in the day.
Besides ratings, there are probably more talking head shows because you have to fill an awful lot of time if you show news for 24 hours. If you want someone to watch for 3 hours a day, the shit in the first hour has to be different than the shit in the 3rd hour. It can't all be regurgitation of the news of the day and politicians making speeches. Also, maybe people don't talk to their neighbors or meet up in groups like they used to. Instead of discussing politics after work with your peers at a bar, the cable networks fill that function.
I'd agree with those here who pointed out that the high cost of producing investigative journalism is partly to blame.
The problem isn't exactly that low-information content news is more popular than the high-information type, it's that it's popular enough to produce profitably.
However many millions Fox News pays Glen Beck for his banal braying is less than it would take to pay the half-dozen or more talented editors, writers and producers it would take to fill the same time slot with high-quality journalism.
Theoretically, to get Fox's interest, a high-information program would have to draw double, triple or more than Beck's audience, given the magnitude of costs to produce it.
And don't forget promotion costs. Fox can whip together an ad from Beck's lamest quips in no time and run the thing for months without change, cementing the brand. To promote a high-information content show requires producing ads with high-information content, which means a lot more production work and painstaking development of nuance and factual precision on an ongoing basis. A much bigger, more expensive task...
There is a reason people go to McDonald's every night for dinner. Perhaps the reason isn't a good one, but it's not stupid or pathological.
Okay, this is sloppy.
If you're eating McD's every night, or every other night, or even just three nights of every week, the reason is almost assuredly based in stupidity, and it's of a pathological nature (by definition). That's what junk food is betting on, when it appeals to these aspects of human behavior.
I know this, even as I have indulged in it. Bottom line is: life is exhausting, and when you knew better and had the time & energy to prepare your meals in advance, you spent that time doing other things. Now, you don't want to think, you don't want to mess up the kitchen (or you don't want to clean it to mess it up immediately), and you want food NOW, and so does your counterpart and so do your kids.
You knew better, but chose to ignore the situation, and if you're doing this regularly, I'd call you a bit stupid & pathological. No free pass on this, for me or anybody else.
We are partially responsible for the coverage we get. Being manipulated by big business and media to accept this coverage is all part of the psychological programming we've been fed from the beginning of advertising and marketing since the beginning of time. The people behind this programming are not the workers, but the institutions, corporations...and elites.
Having bought into this capitalistic society (an experiment that failed), we work harder, have less time for creativity and thinking, require conveniences to allow for exercise and family activities, play with our "toys" (blackberries, laptops and all the programs that go with them), shop for our egos, and drive daily, endlessly to acquire and maintain this lifestyle. We are slaves to a system we have no control over, yet are programmed through our egos to believe we do.
We are consuming and working exactly as we are being directed by corporations and elites who operate this economic system. Heck, the time change has been adjusted to fit their needs (start early for business on the east coast). Who cares about our biological clocks (waking with the chickens)? Who cares that Americans have far less vacation days than Europeans? Who cares that we sleep less, are more stressed out, are more unhealthy, have more psychological problems, no time to shop for "quality, healthy" food and prepare it, and burned out so we don't think deeply enough to know we are slaves to a system making us robots and consumers for THEIR way of life.
It took me to retire from the corporate world to relax and have the time to assess where I have been while raising a family and working for the past 30 years. I have learned that our education system is part of the programming too. We are taught (home, education system, corporations, small business, government, media) to strive to earn lots of money. We are shown there are lots of goodies we can buy with this money. We are tempted at every turn to want these goodies. Materialism rules the day. The message: with money, you can have and be anything you want to be. In America, anything is possible, if you try hard enough.
We are so far removed from what is healthy and spiritual, that we believe it takes lots of money to be healthy and spiritual.
To break from the programming, we have to snap out of it and think. No, sitting at Starbucks to contemplate this issue won't do it. We are in a Depression, not a Recession. The "system" is collapsing because the elites and corporations bled us dry. People are losing jobs and homes in droves. This is causing a shift in values. What goes up, must come down, and the party of capitalism is over.
It is time for us to get involved. Demand more from the media. No more liars like Glenn Beck and Rush Limbaugh who work for the system. Write to your politicians and demand more from them. Stay on them. Learn what these politicians are about and the lies they tell. Most, if not all, work for the corporations and elites...not "we the people."
Learn about the "monster foods" you eat. Learn what Monsanto has done to the seeds. Horrifying. Buy from local markets. Grow your own vegetables and fruits so you aren't being poisoned daily. Eat little to no meat and know how the animals are factory farmed in horrific ways. Read Pollan's "Omnivore's Dilemma"...it will change your life. I guarantee.
Stay home and spend the majority of your free time with family...teaching and sharing. Take time for friends. Cook all meals. Recreate more at home (games, table tennis, hoops). Make your home comfortable for you, family and guests. Keep it clean, safe, sacred. This is key...be selective with TV as you are being followed to see what your selections are. Seek truth stations (MSNBC - Olbermann, Maddow, FSTV, PBS, DIYs) that teach you to think. Avoid Fox News Network like the plague. Google "Bilderberg" "PNAC" "911". Dig deep for the truth. Spend money on your security, education, food, family...not clothes, cars and things.
Understand how religion has manipulated our lives. This is not an attack on religion. Just think about why politicians have used religion as a means to their agenda...as well as religious leaders. Christ would not buy into today's system. He would call us hypocrites. You can't buy your way to heaven.
Find a way to work from home and help your community. Get involved with your neighbors and local government. This may be difficult to do while you work for someone else, but it's a goal that will reward you and your family immensely, as well as prepare you for the next system.
Consume less. Learn to live with far less. Stick to the basics and what you need. Think through each purchase, who you are purchasing from and who those businesses support politically. Know where your dollar ends up. Support local, ethical, truly organic businesses. Try to avoid corporations and big business retailers.
Break out of the hypnotic system (matrix). The period of ME is over. We are entering the period of WE. Our current lifestyles are ruining the basic things our children and grandchildren need after we are gone: clean air, water, food, animals, shelter. Watch media coverage and advertisements with a shrewd, keen eye. Will this coverage give us our basics...help or hurt the planet? I don't think prescription drugs, prepared monster foods, fancy cars, more toys, investments (gambling), beautiful bodies and faces, lies and gold are going to cut it.
On the surface, we deserve the coverage we get. Digging deep, we deserve far, far better. It's later than you know.
http://desertgurl.com/2009/08/23/welcome.aspx
There is a market for deeply reported policy stories, but it's smaller (but richer!) than the one for Sarah Palin stories. If you want mass coverage of something like health care reform, you're going to have to settle for something around the level of "death panels! OMG!". This is true of every market: there's a niche of really top-quality stuff and then the mass market of things just above garbage level - but that everybody can afford (in terms of time and/or money).
Also fresh facts are hard and expensive for news organizations to acquire. But you know what they say about opinions...
I remember back during the anthrax scares that the news anchors were basically saying "Look, go buy a paper that explains this in depth, because this is complicated and we can't do it in 8 minutes." There's a reason that The New Yorker and The Economist are niche markets...I'm not sure exactly why, though. Both are worlds above Time and Newsweek. But there doesn't seem to be a national appetite for in-depth high-quality reporting on Important Stuff.
Jeez, an Economist subscription is not _that_ expensive. For the return on your investment, it is worth much more than almost any other publication I have ever seen, unless you are talking a very narrowly focused journal of some sort. Everyone, just cancel your subscriptions to the crap like Vogue and Time, and get subscriptions to the Economist and the Atlantic (another magazine well worth the cost, even if I do say so an Atlantic blog). In a few weeks you will be much better informed than you ever have been before in your life.
The horse-race stories also deepen political polarization. Most of those encourage people to pick a side and then allow them to see the "other" through a distorted lens. I like to think that if the focus came back more to what the substantive policies were, people would perceive that those on the other side of an issue aren't really evil/stupid/etc but rather have some non-absurd ideas that aren't totally crazy and maybe need to be accounted for.
Many people want serious coverage about something, but very few people want serious coverage about everything. I mostly read the news to find out if anything really dire happened today. If nothing major blew up or caught fire, then I tune out or switch to the recipes and movie reviews. Add sports scores and financial markets for people who are into that stuff. I think this has always been the main function of news coverage -- people have never had the time or mental energy to digest complex analyses of every issue every day.
I ignore horserace coverage and the TV opinion stuff entirely, and I only read certain newspaper and blog columnists who are reliably interesting. But for people who like it, it probably belongs in with the recipes and sports scores.
Now, about that in-depth stuff, you often have to go to the specialty press. The Economist is great for general world news, especially world news with an economic focus. But if you really want to geek out on something complicated like health care or energy, you end up in the trade press rather quickly. And nobody can follow more than one or two issues this way.