I asked a question earlier today about why the media didn't report the good stories coming out of Iraq. I made it clear (although some didn't read it) that I knew that things weren't going well in Iraq and that they all don't just love each other. For those who actually answered it honestly, thank you. My question for those who believe nothing good comes out of Iraq or if it does it is propaganda because nothing good is coming out of Iraq is this: Why doesn't the media cover positive stories in the USA? Are we in the same situation as Iraq? Do we have suicide bombers in the streets? I am just wondering how you can spin this. Nothing good comes out of Iraq because you people state there is very little. Is this true about America, because we get about the same amount of positive news?
2007-04-29 09:28:04 · 13 answers · asked by Billy 3 in Politics & Government ➔ Politics
Mark - Honest answer. Thanks.
2007-04-29 09:33:48 · update #1
musashi - Great answer.
2007-04-29 09:42:21 · update #2
It seems those on the FAR LEFT have been rather quiet on this one. What a shock.
2007-04-29 09:45:04 · update #3
The modern news media motto:
"If it bleeds, it leads!"
The truth is, news careers are built on covering disasters, scandals, and combat zones. Why would any self-respecting news hound (if there even is such a thing, which I doubt) waste his or her time writing about, filming, or interviewing a story about the millions of GOOD things that happen every day when just down the street somebody is hurting someone else? That's where the "story" is.
Just look at the ghoulish intensity with which the news media devoted itself for a solid week to the Va Tech shootings. True, it was a horrible event in American history, and it did need to be covered; but why did they have to stick a camera and a mike in the face of every single coed who might have known somebody who knew somebody who had heard something about someone related to the event? Because there had to be an angle in there somewhere; a story no one else was telling, and that could be the ticket to an anchor chair or a higher rung on the network ladder.
That and the simple fact that the news is a business, and it all comes down to the bottom line. Are viewers/readers going to spend their time and/or money on "good" news, or are they much more likely to buy bad news?
2007-04-29 09:41:15 · answer #1 · answered by musashi 2 · 4⤊ 1⤋
First of all - sex, death, violence, celebrities and scandal sell advertising, and news media are for-profit businesses.
Second - media that does focus on the good while ignoring the bad get out-competed by those who flock to the items listed in #1.
Third - if a noticeable percentage of consumers favored positive content over #1, there would be more media catering to them. But the time-proven trend of #2 weighs against the effort anymore - if you put millions of your own money into a business, how likely would you be to risk losing it to a proven method of failure?
Fourth - It is not just the "positive" stories that are not making it outt of Iraq. The Tillman story is just the tip of the iceberg. Most returning soldeirs I know are full of horror stories that have not made it to the media as well.
2007-04-29 09:44:45 · answer #2 · answered by kent_shakespear 7 · 2⤊ 1⤋
For the most part, the MSM has a socialist agenda, culticidal (you'll have to google it, too long to explain here) and telling the truth or showing positives will not help move AMerica further along towards SOCIALISM.
The link below shows a university study that proves who does what and when. Now for your next challenge, see if you can get any leftists to debate the merits of the research paper, in an intellectual manner without ad hominem attack. Good luck, I have been trying since the report came out and NONE will debate, it is like they are mentally ill and refuse to admit reality, like denial, and definitely paranoid.
2007-04-29 10:07:10 · answer #3 · answered by rmagedon 6 · 0⤊ 1⤋
I find it odd that people keep asking this types of questions like "why do always cover the bad stories about African Americans and never the good ones"
Just assume that if the media doesn't cover it it is good news. Would you really read the news if the main article were another day of no terrorist attacks in Seattle. And then they go on to explain why or whatnot.
2007-04-29 09:54:06 · answer #4 · answered by gordongecko 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋
If it looks good for the USA it might make Bush look good and nothing that might make Bush look good is allowed. If a Democrat is elected in 2008 there will be good stories about the USA, unless there is a Republican Congress that might look good if a good USA story leaks out. Only when Democrats are in total power in Washington is America allowed to look good.
2007-04-29 09:51:45 · answer #5 · answered by Anonymous · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because the positive stories are BORING
Often times positive stories are not that big of a deal. They don't stir emotion like a negative story. And this is true in real life as well, negative often stirs more emotion than postive. If a U.S. soldier builds you a school, you thank him and go about your daily business ,and basically forget about it. But if a U.S. soldier kills one of your family, then you dedicate every day of your life to seeking revenge. This is why positive stories don't matter.
2007-04-29 09:33:22 · answer #6 · answered by Anonymous · 6⤊ 2⤋
people think positive stories are boring... but I don't I think they show way too much bad news and definitely not enough good
2007-04-29 09:59:03 · answer #7 · answered by Lindsey G 5 · 0⤊ 1⤋
Because Our President is a Republican. End of Story
2007-04-29 09:40:27 · answer #8 · answered by Nunya Bidniss 7 · 1⤊ 3⤋
media covers only sensational stories to increase their circulation and sales. positive news do not have any influence on their circulation.
2007-04-29 09:33:57 · answer #9 · answered by nightingale 6 · 5⤊ 1⤋
Cuz it is manipulated by evil reptilian aliens
2007-04-29 10:05:11 · answer #10 · answered by Rikjard M 2 · 0⤊ 1⤋