Wow... not used to this much observation from a journalist...

It seems lately the media is only interested in their own self-inflated interests...

the real news is never to be heard...

They should just call it the "Bad-news"

I just used the quote about McCain to illustrate that he doesn't pull any punches.

I agree with you. I suppose it's no real surprise that the media posts more information about Obama's bowling than hard news issues.

On the other hand, looking at the best sellers list, top movie money makers and the most viewed TV shows they might be giving us what they perceive it's what the public wants.

Edit: Possible case in point:

On Plime, post about a top NASA scientist talking about a possible earth crisis....81 upvotes

Post about jelly bean flavors 343 up votes.

Yes this guy makes a great point. It's the "Hollywood Glam" image they want to portray.

Well, I was going to say maybe more people would be interested if more people knew about it but your edit just shut me down. :/

LOL... and way to draw me in with the whole self interest! Masterfully played ;)

excellent article

excellent article. I wholeheartedly agree with it.

This is scary. I hope this is read by many, many people. Of course it won't, but I can still hope.

Good find, DerAlt.

As I agree with the entire article, we have to remember that the news is not only the source for information, but it is also a business.

Thus, their job is to make as much money as they can, so they cover stories that interest people. Obama bowling would of course interest people much more than hearing about how President Bush is fine with suspending the Fourth Amendment. This country has a ridiculous obsession with Obama, so of course they're going cover that story.

People already hate Bush, so this stuff is just going be "yet another mishap." Frankly, I'd rather hear about how Bush wanted to suspend the Fourth Amendment. I'm usually read up on this sort of thing, and the fact that I had not even heard of it sort of upsets me.

I'm in school for journalism (print/web) and I'd like to say it isn't as bad as all that *all the time.* I mean, it's not like we, as citizens/Plimates, really trust bloggers that much more. And of course the news has to make money, but that doesn't mean journalists don't hold the public good in high regard. A relatively recent study (though of course I can't find it just now) found that journalists were some of the most ethically-minded people, since we spend a lot of time trying to hash out the right course of action.
I'm not defending the publicity of this type, of course. I'd wager that 98% journalists HATE covering Britney Spears over law/crime. But what do people end up reading? People don't like to get the 'spinach' news, but they'll gobble up the junk. And the media, while still making money, is economically crumbling under the strains of Wall Street right now. So, to some extent, we *have* to cover Obama-bowling over another escapade by our president.

(waits for media blame to come tumbling down)

Sorry. It won't. All I ask from my media is to cover stories that have a weight and significance. Britany and bowling scores, however, don't have this.

(Waits for media to grow a pair and start covering the news)

I'll admit that I selected the quote about McCain because it was juicy but nothing else was planned.


Just my slow thinking.