For the past week, I have been posting information I’ve learned from the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis (January 12-14). This post is yet another in that series. One of my favorite parts of the conference was the exhibit hall. There, I met dozens of exhibitors, representatives of…
This post is one of a continuing series of summaries I am creating regarding the sessions I attended of the National Conference for Media Reform in Memphis, Tennessee. Much more information about the conference, including audio of all of the sessions (and video of many) can be found at Free Press.
The academics that spoke at this particular session (“Media Scholars’ Policy Research Review”) were proof that academics (the people and their topics) can be exciting.
Mary Kaplan is the associate dean of the USC Annenberg School for Communication, as well as the founder and director of the Norman Lear Center. Kaplan has focused his research on the content and regulation of local television news.
The Lear Center studies “entertainment.” Broadly defined, this is the “attention economy” which is no longer a separate economy from anything else. Entertainment has expanded like an empire to consume all other activities. Media and journalism are mere branches of entertainment.
Kaplan reports on research establishing that local TV news is, by far, the most important source of news and information for Americans. Almost unbelievably, 65% of Americans say that local television news is their number one source of information.
I write “unbelievably,” based on the widespread lack of serious news content. The fluff of local newscasts drives me to distraction. See an earlier post on local TV news at this site. Kaplan is troubled that most of the content of local news is “soft.” News directors of TV stations have repeatedly told …
This age. Bizarre. Part of the bizarreness rests in how much we actually know about it. We swim in a deepening sea of information. How to cope? We compartmentalize. So, though, do those providing us the information, and therein lies another problem, which is a question of integration. Recently at…
Okay, ladies too. But I was going for a "Sunday, Sun-nday Sunda-ay" feel with the headline. I've always liked this Watterson throwaway reply to Karl Marx from 1987-ish. But, after reading some of the firestorm of responses to Erich's post about Misquoting Jesus, maybe religion hasn't really lost any ground.…
What kinds of voters are we? It’s hard to tell by looking what kind of candidates we elect. After all, we usually only have two viable choices; we often hold our noses and vote for the “lesser of two evils.” Many potential candidates never appear on the ballot, thanks to our horrifically corrupt political system, a system that requires a candidate to have corporate money in order to seen as viable by the corporate-owned media. It is a ludicrous and vicious circle.
Even acknowledging the severely limited choices we have at the polls, how well do we vote? Do we prepare ourselves carefully before entering the voting booth? Do we work hard to expose ourselves to a wide range of perspectives before voting or do we fall prey to the availability heuristic, voting on the basis of highly suspect political ads and intellectually vapid local “news”? Do most voters take time to carefully deliberate on the long-term risks and benefits of the political positions touted by the candidates? Apparently not, based upon the ubiquity misleading attack ads that invite unreflective scorn rather than a deliberate consideration of the issues.
Another bit of evidence suggesting that many of us vote without enough preparation occurs whenever citizens vote for lesser known candidates and issues. On numerous occasions, people have admitted to me that they voted for or against a particular candidate (or issue) about whom (which) they knew nothing at all. In Missouri, this happens all the time when circuit judges seeking …