Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan This 4 and a half minute video is quite revealing as to why Americans know so little about the rest of the world, in spite of more news sources than ever in the history of mankind. <a href="http://www.ted.com/index.php/talks/alisa_miller_shares_the_news_about_the_news.html" target="_blank">http://www.ted.com/index.php/t...ews.html</a> It's some really stunning stuff. The mixture of fluff celebrity news and the mixing of news and opinion is really depressing.
Originally Posted By mawnck Depressing yes, but there's stats and then there's stats. Regardless of what Americans may have said to the pollsters, I sincerely doubt that you'd find 60% of Americans would *really* rather hear about Africa than about Britney Spears. Besides, why shouldn't Americans be most interested in (a) their own country and (b) the country where the war is? I daresay that if you took the newscasts from, say, I dunno, Luxembourg maybe, and did the same map, you'd get a big fat Luxembourg.
Originally Posted By Hans Reinhardt I found that presentation very sad. "I daresay that if you took the newscasts from, say, I dunno, Luxembourg maybe, and did the same map, you'd get a big fat Luxembourg." I don't think so. I have several friends from around Europe, include Luxembourg, living here and they all complain that the American news media focuses too much on domestic events compared to news bureaus in Europe.
Originally Posted By Kar2oonMan >>Besides, why shouldn't Americans be most interested in (a) their own country and (b) the country where the war is?<< No one says they aren't. But the "news" that we tend to be interested in is celebrity news. It's a problem when more people know the inner workings of the death of Anna Nicole and her personal problems to the exclusion of floods, famines, and unrest in other parts of the planet. If you listen to a little BBC radio, the difference is immediate. Their stories are truly international in scope, not fixated on Paul McCartney's love life. It's hard to argue that news coverage here, especially in broadcast news, isn't rather pitiful. It's based less on the stories that should be told, and more on stories that draw a crowd, as large crowds are what sell ads.
Originally Posted By DAR <<If you listen to a little BBC radio, the difference is immediate. Their stories are truly international in scope, not fixated on Paul McCartney's love life.>> BBC notwithstanding the Brits have their fair share of National Enquirer/US Weekly publications
Originally Posted By avromark ^^ Well at least you have CNN, chances are half the time if I miss today's news stories a similar story will still be airing on CNN a week later. Also how many times do I have to hear the same story in one day, with other people just repeating the same piece of information? Along not so similar lines there was a satirical sketch comedy show on here one of the segments was called "Talking to Americans". Now I know it's not representative 100% of the average American. I still find it funny (as I've mentioned here in the past) that they can still find the amount of people who are ignorant <a href="http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=BhTZ_tgMUdo" target="_blank">http://www.youtube.com/watch?v...Z_tgMUdo</a> But I do have to argue that worldwide peoples attitudes and priorities are shifting. Although I do have to admit I'm not one who is into celebrity gossip. How many people know who the current leader of UK is (I'm guessing if I asked that here many would still stay Blair). What's the chief export of ___? When was the last G8 Global Summit? Etc. Ignorance truly is bliss.
Originally Posted By trekkeruss <<If you listen to a little BBC radio, the difference is immediate. Their stories are truly international in scope, not fixated on Paul McCartney's love life.>> NPR and PBS has more of what you're looking for. I notice the news in other parts of the country is different than what I (typically) see here in the Washington D.C. area. That's not to say you can't get your fill of celebrity news here, but that there is more "real" news available from the local channels.
Originally Posted By avromark That's odd my local news channel was telling me how much fun it is to collect models (even at Wal-Mart while driving a Camry down the street. Who would have thunk that?
Originally Posted By SuperDry <<< I notice the news in other parts of the country is different than what I (typically) see here in the Washington D.C. area. That's not to say you can't get your fill of celebrity news here, but that there is more "real" news available from the local channels. >>> I suspect that this is because DC more than any other city has more "locals" who did not actually grow up in the local area, but relocated there for a common purpose.
Originally Posted By Goofyernmost One might add here that just because these other country's broadcast this type of news, doesn't necessarily mean that anyone is listening. We are not a nation that governmentally supports the media. We need people watching to pay attention long enough to see the commercials. If they tune out, financial support is lost. I truly doubt that Europeans, for example, are extremely better versed on world events then we are, perhaps less, because between "fluff" items we can maintain attention levels long enough to hear about something else. Personally, I wouldn't have wasted 10 seconds on the likes of Anna Nicole, but that is just me. PBS, is a serious news source. How many of us actually watch PBS for our news.
Originally Posted By avromark ^^^ Yeah but it's not CNN No Anderson, etc. That said I personally watch everything but CNN
Originally Posted By dshyates Me, Me, I watch PBS for news. Don't you guys have the BBC on your teles. Even here in hillbilly hell I have PBS and BBC on the cable, and the BBC, Bloomberg, CBC Radio One (Canada), World Radio Network and NPR on the satellite radio. They also have a lot of foreign language news stations like, Korean, French, and Spanish.
Originally Posted By avromark I have BBC and CBC. Rogers (since the death of Ted Rogers) has realigned the packages so I have to upgrade my cable package again. I let my Sirius expire.
Originally Posted By dshyates Living in WV where its Garth and Shania or the lottery of AM, Sirius is a must. But Americans think like they do for several reasons. One, the vast size of the country. Two, the lack of neighboring ethnic cultures. Three, the cost of traveling abroad. I think with the way that you guys fly around the world, you forget that for MOST of us traveling abroad is a very rare thing.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Besides, why shouldn't Americans be most interested in (a) their own country and (b) the country where the war is?*** We are at war with Iraq. We have always been at war with Iraq. Pakistan is our ally.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Three, the cost of traveling abroad. I think with the way that you guys fly around the world, you forget that for MOST of us traveling abroad is a very rare thing.*** Boy, howdy. In my lifetime I've lived on both coasts, lived in Japan, traveled to Okinawa, traveled extensively around the continental USA, traveled to Hong Kong, Macau, Guam, Hawaii, Mexico (twice), and Canada (several times)...which I always thought was kinda neat until logging onto LP where I always feel like I've barely gotten away from my own backyard!
Originally Posted By dshyates What concerns me more about Americans is the level of education across the board. I have realized after W. and Sarah Palin, that Americans are too stupid to even be able to point out the smart person in the room.
Originally Posted By Mr X ***Americans are too stupid to even be able to point out the smart person in the room*** I'm not so sure that is an issue of "stupidity" per se, nor even that it is education related (again, per se). It's not so much that they CAN'T identify "the smart person in the room", it's more the fact that they don't LIKE that person. Thus, the whole "folksy" appeal. I blame Reagan (who I firmly believe WAS a smart guy, but hid it well).
