General Discussion
Related: Editorials & Other Articles, Issue Forums, Alliance Forums, Region ForumsTo put the coverage of Simpson today in perspective
http://www.businessinsider.com/evening-news-election-2016-10During the entire campaign from June until late October Hillary Clinton got 89 minutes of coverage on all three networks news broadcasts. Issues as a whole got 32 minutes (no that is not a typo).
With less than two weeks to go before Election Day, nightly newscasts have spent 17 minutes covering terrorism; seven minutes on unrest in the Middle East in areas like Syria, Iraq, and Israel, and the rise of the Islamic State; and they have mentioned issues like LGBT rights, policing, and immigration only in passing, the report said.
Issues that have gotten minimal or no coverage include drugs, healthcare, poverty, gun control, and climate change. And if these issues were mentioned, "it has been on the candidates' terms, not the networks' initiatives," the report said.
Assuming that OJ was given a hour on the three networks today he got 3 hours just today. That is nearly six times the coverage all issues got in the three to four months of the election and over twice the coverage that Clinton got.
If you wonder why the public is ignorant of what is going on, that is one big reason why.
underpants
(182,788 posts)50 Shades Of Blue
(9,985 posts)H2O Man
(73,537 posts)Thank you.
HipChick
(25,485 posts)with Video....
LanternWaste
(37,748 posts)"If you wonder why the public is ignorant of what is going on, that is one big reason why..."
Ratings-driven content... the broadcasters simply give us what we will tune in for. If the public wanted news broadcasts designed to inform the electorate, we would receive than instead. But as long as we desire yelling over discussion, celebrity over policy, and simplistic, three-bullet point arguments over analysis, we have ourselves to blame.
It's a difficult argument to assign responsibility to the networks for what we collectively demand from them, for what drives the ratings and profits. Indeed... this afternoon's edition of General Discussion reflects this accurately with eleven OPs about the Mr Simpson on its front page.
Unreal.
LovingA2andMI
(7,006 posts)FuzzyRabbit
(1,967 posts)There is barely any news at all on network news shows.
Warpy
(111,254 posts)and it's not going to change until we make it unprofitable and we make it unprofitable by switching those blow dried bobbleheads and their infotainment off, along with their sponsors.
The only things worth watching on the evening news are the weather forecast (it has a chance of being right) and maybe the sports scores.
Bernardo de La Paz
(49,001 posts)VOX
(22,976 posts)What's taken their place just doesn't come anywhere near a match. For-profit news is just that.
Jopin Klobe
(779 posts)... so it's still bleeding ...
... thus, it's still leading ...
BumRushDaShow
(128,905 posts)which is why Drumpf got something like $5 billion in free advertising when he was running for office.
salin
(48,955 posts)dsc
(52,160 posts)NRaleighLiberal
(60,014 posts)having turned it off nearly 10 years ago, if we are traveling and watch for a bit from a hotel, we have to turn it off immediately - it is toxic.
iluvtennis
(19,852 posts)Chico Man
(3,001 posts)Why must we always be aghast with how American society consumes television media? It's getting less and less relevant..
dsc
(52,160 posts)As recently as 2008 issues got about 7x as much coverage this isn't all the public's fault.
Blue_Tires
(55,445 posts)I screamed and yelled for a solid year for everyone to stop feeding the beast and keeping their TV on CNN all night and starting 20 new threads in GD every time Trump said something outrageous... Even before he was a serious primary contender, Trump was getting a solid 60-90 minutes of free coverage most nights, or more if he said something really batshit/racist/sexist...