When a dog bites a man, that is not news; but when a man bites a dog, that is news.
Besides, newspapers print stories that sell, and that means stories that people can gripe about.

"The idea of filling a paper with 'good news' has been mooted before, but the twitching hard noses of journalists - and readers - simply find shock-horror more appealing." Geordie Greg Editor of the Evening Standard, (London) from The Big Issue June 2009

And how often the stories are gruesome, but not newsworthy at all. And how often do these gruesome stories receive hours of coverage while relevant and compelling news is left to a marquee mention at the bottom of the television screen.

When money, rather than reporting, is the goal of the news, reporting falls by the wayside. But without reporting, there is no news, good or bad, to be heard. The industry is killing itself on this quest for incessant increase of profit.

Elmud,
Why do you think they report the negative side of life? What is it about "sensationalism" that draws our attention? We don't have to watch it. When you idly sit in front of a television set, you allow it to introduce into your senses what it desires. It fills your mind with crap it does not need. Think about it. In lieu of picking up a news paper and "selecting" what you choose to know about, the television catches you off guard. Now having said that, what will you do if scanning a news paper and there are two articles side by side; one being tragic, one being optimistic, which one will you read first? The one about "the mother who drowned her five children in a bathtub" or the one about "good news about nutrition"? What is it that "compels" us to witness the "horror" in life? Are we asking for it, or are those who "choreograph" the news doing in for a reason? What do you think?:perplexed:

William

I understand that gruesome stories attract our attention with greater alacrity than positive stories, but we've reached the point where news stations are more likely to provide gruesome for the sake of gruesome rather than relevance.

For example, they will show you hours and hours about a crazy mother drowning her children, but the long hoped for peace accord in Africa goes unnoticed in the scrolling marquis.

I think it's because those are the stories they believe people want to hear; not that everyone necessarily wants to hear negativity, per say, but the titillating, drama-filled, horrifying or high-impact. I try to bear in mind that news agencies - with few if any exceptions - are businesses selling a product. They don't report what's important, they report what they believe will keep people tuned in (controversial, voyeuristic, violent, etc.)

Thanks

elmud, watch some other news! bbc is ok, but i dont know what else is available on cable. newspapers online are better, then you can get a nice overview of lies and propaganda and sift through it to try and find out what might be going on.

i believe the majority of people do watch fox and buy the enquirer and that is what keeps them going. as long as there is a market for it they will prosper. too bad.

what i really hate is when you see someone give a speech or an interview on television and then the commentator comes on and says 'here's what he meant'. he might as well be saying 'here's how to think and what you should believe'. most people dont even listen to anything but the commentary, they are too lazy. those people are not here on this forum either...

It was almost funny to hear Fox News "correspondents" respond to Obama's speech in Egypt. Flat out lies. But those lies are exactly what a good portion of their audience wanted to hear.

I think misery is good fuel for the parasites.