If there is video of something it is more likely to rise to the top of the news budget—regardless of its true merit. Policy stories are seldom as compelling as disaster footage. This is also why reporters go to the scene—at times putting themselves in danger—to witness for themselves and bring their viewers along. And I agree, that edito…
If there is video of something it is more likely to rise to the top of the news budget—regardless of its true merit. Policy stories are seldom as compelling as disaster footage. This is also why reporters go to the scene—at times putting themselves in danger—to witness for themselves and bring their viewers along. And I agree, that editors know who their audiences are and what they are interested in reading/watching. But to suggest that “the media” is some monolithic force with an intentional agenda, is laughable. News people are as varied as any other random group of people and are often at odds with each other in their very own newsrooms.
There are actually stories in the news about how newsroom are, in fact, not that varied in the kinds of people that work there. Not enough viewpoint, racial, socioeconomic etc diversity. Such stories generally talk about the kinds of blind spots that emerge as a result.
That doesn't mean the media is a monolith, but it does help explain the way certain issues are framed (eg why the costs of social programs is always mentioned in a way that defense spending isn't) or why certain kinds of stories seem to happen on repeat, regardless of source (eg small town diners aka "cletus safari" stories.)
If there is video of something it is more likely to rise to the top of the news budget—regardless of its true merit. Policy stories are seldom as compelling as disaster footage. This is also why reporters go to the scene—at times putting themselves in danger—to witness for themselves and bring their viewers along. And I agree, that editors know who their audiences are and what they are interested in reading/watching. But to suggest that “the media” is some monolithic force with an intentional agenda, is laughable. News people are as varied as any other random group of people and are often at odds with each other in their very own newsrooms.
There are actually stories in the news about how newsroom are, in fact, not that varied in the kinds of people that work there. Not enough viewpoint, racial, socioeconomic etc diversity. Such stories generally talk about the kinds of blind spots that emerge as a result.
That doesn't mean the media is a monolith, but it does help explain the way certain issues are framed (eg why the costs of social programs is always mentioned in a way that defense spending isn't) or why certain kinds of stories seem to happen on repeat, regardless of source (eg small town diners aka "cletus safari" stories.)