We lack all perspective

[Prism]

http://tvbythenumbers.com/2010/10/29/cable-news-ratings-for-thursday-october-28-2010/70188">Some statistics:

Live + Same Day Cable News Daily Ratings for Thursday October 28, 2010

FNC 1,340,00
CNN 347,000
MSNBC 464,000
CNBC 165,000
HLN 280,000

Roughly 2.6 million people are glancing at cable news during the day. And this is during an election cycle, with the midterm election mere days away. These are just about as high as these daytime numbers get.

2.6 million people. In a country of 310 million, about 224,440,000 of those are over 20. Assuming only adults over 20 account for the viewership of cable news, that is 1.15% of the American adult population watching some portion of cable news during the day. During prime time, cable news is pulling in roughly 5.6 million viewers - roughly 2.5% of the over 20 adult population.

And this is during an election cycle.

If these were network shows, 95% of them would be canceled. This is a vanishingly small audience. And yet they suck all the energy and oxygen out of our discourse. Politicians respond to what happens in this vanishingly small world. Political bloggers give them endless attention. Journalists treat whatever a cable talking head is saying to their handful of viewers as very nearly holy writ.

What is wrong with this picture? A Sarah Palin could only live in this distorted world.

How much activism and energy that could be used in the real world, on the streets, tending to the suffering of others is instead expended because some no-name nobody somewhere said something on a show with practically no viewers? How much time is wasted on shows and people that no one in the country is watching anyway? We just had an entire political rally about this tiny subset of American media.

Is there anyone with perspective in the room? How much longer will this distracted state continue as the country crumbles around us?

And this is not a Republican/Democratic or liberal/conservative thing. Both sides obsess over this small subset of media, both sides expend enormous amounts of energy fighting and arguing and pushing and lending validity to people who wouldn't make it four episodes as a mid-season replacement on the CW with their audience.

I don't watch cable news. Quite simply, I haven't the time. Most Americans don't. Aren't our most active political operatives doing the American people a grave disservice by treating this tiny portion of media as kingmakers and oracles? Isn't there just about anything else they could be doing?

Yet tomorrow, and the next day, and the next year, and the next election, this handful of people will suck all the oxygen and energy out of the room, consume thousands of hours that could be alleviating real suffering somewhere, grab and keep the attention of the political junkies who could be boots on the ground in a real movement towards justice.

It's ridiculous. When do you say enough and work to break that hold? Or are you, too, enthralled?

[elocs]

1. I don't watch cable news or commentary either. Nor any of the talking heads,

even the ones from our side who are always on fire.

Speaking of Palin, DU has had an enthralled and repulsed obsession with her since McCain picked her, pouncing on and repeating her every word and utterance.

[Prism]

3. I read more about Palin on DU than anywhere else

Just idly skimming around, reading only post titles, there are days when I could tell you more about what Sarah Palin got up to what my own family is doing. That's part of the problem right there.

[elocs]

14. Remember the day after Obama's great acceptance speech?

When after McCain picked Palin the threads here about her were overwhelming, with each and every poster believing they had something new, clever, and unique to say about her. They still do.

[Gaedel]

7. Same with talk radio

They took over a rapidly irrelevant AM band (rescued it from total oblivion) and we hang on every word Rush says in order to be outraged. Rush only says things in such an outrageous manner so people who disagree with him will keep listening for the pleasure of gouging their eyes out with rusty spoons.

Doctor of Democracy
America's Truth Detector
America's Anchor Man
Harmless Little Fuzzball

He doesn't keep saying those things for the ditto heads, he says those things for the people that hate him and listen anyway in order to be outraged.

[Prism]

9. It reminds me of that scene in the Howard Stern biopic

When they're discussing Stern's ratings.

Researcher: The average radio listener listens for eighteen minutes a day. The average Howard Stern fan listens for - are you ready for this? - an hour and twenty minutes.

Pig Vomit: How could this be?

Researcher: Answer most commonly given: "I want to see what he'll say next."

Pig Vomit: All right, fine. But what about the people who hate Stern?

Researcher: Good point. The average Stern hater listens for two and a half hours a day.

Pig Vomit: But... if they hate him, why do they listen?

Researcher: Most common answer: "I want to see what he'll say next."

How much are we contributing to the problem ourselves?

[Wednesdays]

15. About AM radio...

"They took over a rapidly irrelevant AM band (rescued it from total oblivion)..."

I clearly remember the decline of AM, when they stopped playing music and switched over to "talk" radio. However, at the time (the 1970's and early 1980's) "talk radio" was "ask the doctor" and recipe-sharing shows.

It was the repeal of the Fairness Doctrine in 1987, and later the corporate takeover of the AM airwaves, that enabled the domination of the rightwing screamers.

[Gaedel]

20. yes, but

AM radio was going broke with the farm reports, "ask the doctor" and "coaches corners". The music and the hip DJs had all gone to FM. About the only regular AM listeners were long haul truck drivers and folks in mountainous areas that couldn't get line-of-sight" FM signals. The talk radio types came in there with their pre-packaged shows with built in commercials that were provided free to the AM stations who just had to sell the local advertising slots. If it hadn't been for talk radio, half of the AM band would have gone dark.

Back in the 1980s, my car only had an AM radio and it was difficult to find anything to listen to. Getting a feed from some country church preacher droning on or listening to the price of corn interspersed with commercials for fertilizers and pest control wasn't much. Rush and his imitators took over a wasteland and made it profitable.

[spanone]

2. these are the same companies that rule the national news

it doesn't stop at cables borders

[Prism]

6. Definitely not

Cable news is like a ruptured abscess that infected our entire media structure.

But at some point, the people, the 98% who aren't patronizing these channels, have to tell the rest of the media enough. And the portion of the 2% on our side who are given them so much validity, stature, and imprimatur have to stop playing the game. It's rigged.

[MineralMan]

4. Have you checked the viewer counts for the three networks?

I think you'll find that their news programs top these numbers by a great deal. I believe that every network beats the combined total from the cable news by a bunch.

Cable isn't the only source of news out there, but we tend to forget the local and national news programs on ABC, CBS, and NBC. They still reach far more people than the cable news nets. Ignoring them is ignoring most news viewers.

That's not to say that they do a better job, but more people are watching them.

[Prism]

8. I'm talking specifically about how cable news tail wags the dog of media

How many times has some minor incident on cable news, seen by very, very few people, get blown up by the political blogs, then picked up by the national network media and newspapers?

Look at Sarah Palin. Would anyone anywhere care what she does in front of 500 people in a high school gym? Normally, no. But cable news pimps it, discusses it, throws the biggest spotlight they've got on it, then blogs talk about it, then voila, suddenly she's on the nightly network news.

She is just one example of many who have successfully degraded our discourse because a tiny portion of our political media has somehow been given the power to dictate what we talk about every day. And it isn't just corporations. At some point, people become complicit. Bloggers, posters, viewers.

People play their roles and do the work for a lot of these outlets.

[Wednesdays]

16. Even DU plays the game

If it causes enough of a stir on Faux Noise, hand-wringers post horror-filled threads about it here, ad nauseam. :eyes:

[Coyote_Bandit]

5. Hey, Hey

I'm one of those people. I'm not another Sarah Palin and I don't suck all the energy out of the room. That said, I've usually got cable news on all day every day Monday through Friday.

Makes for better background noise than game shows, soap operas, and daytime talk shows. Less distracting too. I suppose I could put some music on in the background but I prefer to enjoy the music I listen to rather than have it serve as background filler.

As for perspective I'd suggest that pain depends on point of view.

[Prism]

11. Passive listening is passive

I'm talking more about active results of viewership. For example, the time political bloggers spend talking about cable news stories or the time posters spend attacking/defending/debating some absurd frame set up by an anchorman with twelve viewers. That kind of thing definitely sucks the life out of our politics. And the politicians feel this bizarre need to answer for it in quick time, making the worst decisions as a result (i.e. the Sherrod incident).

I'm all for people watching/listening/reading to what they please (seriously, I play World of Warcraft in my free time - I'm in no position to criticize that sort of thing). But when it comes time to sit down and do something, to improve the world a bit, to shiny up our corners, if we're dancing to the beat of the cable news drum, something's going wrong.

[BzaDem]

10. While only 2.6 million watch on any given day, it's likely a somewhat different group of people

each day. So if you could get figures on how many watched at least 1 hour per week, it would probably be in the tens of millions.

[Prism]

12. But are people who only glance at it now and then likely to spend energy on it?

I mean, given airports and doctors' offices alone, tens of millions no doubt do see these channels in the course of a week for a small amount of time.

But I'm specifically focusing on the involved and highly interested political/media culture. How one minor incident or quote or story seen by, maybe, a couple hundred thousand people suddenly becomes The Top Story that the networks are pushing and politicians are scrambling to get in on.

There's something highly off about that.

[bemildred]

13. Well said. nt

[mike_c]

17. don't mistake "watching cable news" for "being informed about our world...."

Lots of well informed folks are in that pool that NEVER watches cable news. We still read.

Likewise, lots of those folks who DO watch cable news are utterly incapable of parsing the meaning of current world events. They are grist for the corporations selling stuff during the commercial breaks. Their primary purpose in public discourse is to view advertising and consume.

[Prism]

19. I 100% agree with you

In fact, I find there's a strange correlation with cable news. Generally, the more voracious the consumer, the harder it is to have an in depth discussion about issues. When information is broken down into chunks of sound-bitten propaganda, thinking typically follows. Eventually, you come out with "Are not! - are too!" noise.

Which is just the way the political class likes it.

[leftstreet]

18. K&R

Very well said

:applause:

[EFerrari]

21. We're always in an election cycle nowadays

and there are good indy news shows people could support if they were willing to let go of their Sarah Palin fix.

[Starry Messenger]

22. I haven't had cable news for two years.

It's been awesome. My partner likes to watch it online, but I make him wear headphones. I don't miss it at all.