MSM Not Meeting Market Demand
A common response to the assertion that the MSM decision to cover bad news in Iraq disproportionately is that readers prefer the bad news over the good news. Basically its the argument that if it bleeds it leads. This editorial talks about the massive amount of views certain You Tube videos have received featuring the US military succeeding in Iraq. The demand for this kind of coverage is strong enough that many people have sought it through alternative means. If the MSM editorial decision regarding Iraq coverage was dictated solely by the bottom line then these stories would of be featured prominently on the front page along with the bad news.
The failure of MSM to provide this coverage combined with the fact so many are actively seeking this coverage through MSM means implies that at least partly MSM coverage in Iraq is not determined by selling papers. Of course I have known this for quite some time its getting some of my readers on board were this has proven to difficult.
December 7th, 2007 at 8:25 pm
Wow, what an excellent analysis of how many pro-war movies are posted vs. how many anti-war videos are posted. Ooops!!!
I’m supposed to be impressed and change my opinion based off a post where someone mentions that there are pro-war videos on YouTube? Really, I had no idea there was a single person that was pro-war. I’m convinced. You’re totally right Steve.
December 8th, 2007 at 2:49 pm
I thought those videos were all fakes for purely entertainment purposes anyway. At least, I assumed that was what your reply would be if I pointed out depictions of atrocities or violations of international law (such as use of cluster munitions in residential areas or firing on wounded individuals) perpetrated by the U.S. forces in said videos.
December 10th, 2007 at 11:06 am
No Jamie. I’m simply illustrating the point that there is demand for news coverage in Iraq to be covered a certain way and that the MSM is not meeting that demand. The old axe ‘if it bleeds it leads’ it not a very suitable response to charges of negative bias in Iraq when many people show an interest in positive coverage.
Dan,
I would not deny collateral damage. However the objection I raise in the context of collateral damage is based on poor argumentation focused on how US soldiers intentionally violates law just to harm civilians. This, as it turns out, is a common theme amongst the anti-war crowd and is laughably false. I should also like to note that liberals wish to blur the distinction between civilian death by unintentional collateral damage and intentional terrorist action. Such a blurring is dangerous since it ignores intention which is crucial for moral evaluation.
A dead person by mistake is not the same thing as a dead person intentionally killed to influence policy by getting to top headlines in the press.