William wrote...
News channels are primarily used for entertainment as well; celebrity gossip, building demolitions, explosions, fire, street violence. Most of the shit that ends up on CNN or Fox isn't all that important and they air it just to entertain their viewers so they can get better ratings. sometimes, meaningful news manages to make it to air, but you'd probably have an easier time looking for that kind of news on Youtube than you would on a major media outlet.
What ever is the reason you watch the news, whether it is for the news or for the entertainment, the news channel are showing that material to get ratings. Of coarse you can argue that some news outlets (like FOX) are showing their biased view of reality and show it as news, but for the majority of time i would argue, the news outlets show what ever it is they show to get ratings, not because they want to misrepresent reality.
William wrote...
Hey look, multiple sources so I can cross-reference without fear of censorship and remove bias!
Good for you.
William wrote...
Yeah, I noticed your appeal to popularity pretty clearly
I find it funny how you misrepresent people.
William wrote...
Just because most people watch news that contains negative events doesn't mean they actually
want to.
Whether you
like to watch the news or not doesn't matter, if your tv is on they are getting the ratings.
William wrote...
The older generations didn't and still don't (being technologically inept) have a wide variety of choice in their news sources. Major media outlets have been culturing their audiences and swaying their opinions to this state for years because of government influence (what government wouldn't control it's own news outlets), which is in turn influenced by private organizations. It's easier to control a separated populace ("independence") that lives in constant fear than it is to control a populace with kind relations towards each other living in happiness.
If the older generations based their opinions on what the 'misrepresented and biased' news outlets told them, that is not my fault. Nobody is forcing you to base your opinion on what the news say. The purpose of news is to tell the person watching what is happening in the world, not what to think.
If the only source of news they had were these misrepresented and biased news outlets, again nobody is forcing you to base your opinion on what the news say. If you can't critically think and make up your own opinion on the matter x without the news anchor telling you what to think, that is not my fault either.
William wrote...
Perhaps take a look at what news was like some 40 years ago and compare it to today, there's a pretty big difference in what people enjoyed. People don't inherently enjoy news about suffering, hate and destruction, don't appeal to the actions of the majority to make your conclusion, it can be easily rejected without inconsistency.
My conclusion has nothing to do with what people
enjoy watching, it is about what people watch. 'The ratings' don't care about your reason for watching something as long as you watch. I doubt almost anybody wants to watch news about journalists getting beheaded by the ISIS for entertainment or enjoyment, but people still watch. That is what this is about.
You shouldn't talk about rejecting my conclusion easily when you can't even wrap your head around what the actual conclusion is.