There's a small, weekly newspaper published in a town I used to live in. Every so often, when opportunity allows, I get a copy of it. Reading it is similar to watching re-runs of Mayberry, RFD. Every article (except the obit page) is cheerful news. There is zero chance, of course, of this paper ever becoming read by a wide audience. (The owner and editor do not, as a rule, allow anything "controversial" to be printed in their very republican paper. The only exception is when I submit an op-ed. The editor, for whatever reason, has admired my career as a social activist for the past five decades. She prints anything/everything I write, and never edits a bit out!)
Yet, the public prefers "bad" news. Especially "shocking" news. In my opinion, this is largely due to people's brain chemistry. They seek that jolt in the brain chemicals associated with excitement. And, because Americans have been programmed the years since television became common to be a nation of on-lookers, they seek vicarious thrills.
Add the current computer/cell phone phase of technology, and it becomes instant, very brief messaging. Most of the same people who would be lost without that cell phone, would not be likely to read a long article, much less a book. These days, my editor (who is my friend who attended the sweat lodge ceremony yesterday) continues to try to get me to write brief bits. Having spent many of my formative years at the Longhouse, where oral tradition and long speeches are valued, my failure to attempt to master that new form of communication frustrates her, I think.
= new reply since forum marked as read
