Comments on: What’s wrong with TV: a theory

By: Leszek Cyfer

Leszek Cyfer — Sat, 28 Nov 2009 17:39:55 +0000

It seems that expediency factor has kicked in – what’s tension releaving kicked out what’s goal achieving…

Perhaps TV news will be reborn as an internet platform, with youtube-style movies, and many different, amateur and official aggregators – people who view the clips, find those they find importanr and put them on their aggregation pages, according to the theme, with ranking and short explanation.

Some of them will search clips for breaking news – what’s going on at the moment, some will concentrate on crime, poverty, natural catastrophes, but also will be those who dig stories of hope, fun, things that are important to learn and grow as a person, music, DIY, fishing, sports, education etc.

Add to this search and set-up channel system and people can create their own TV channels they can watch, stop/rewind, comment etc.

Makes Me Think

By: Richard Marr

Richard Marr — Mon, 16 Nov 2009 09:40:13 +0000

I’d agree there’s a lot of weight to arguments about perception of risk being distorted by a wide-reaching media focusing on the extremes (I liked Dan Gardner’s book ‘Risk’), but I also think there’s something else making our ears willing to believe that things are getting worse.

From Hagakure: “It is said that what is called “the spirit of an age” is something to which one cannot return. That this spirit gradually dissipates is due to the world’s coming to an end.”

That 18th century samurai felt their world was coming to an end isn’t surprising, as change was encroaching and their world was in fact coming to an end. If you’re afraid of change, which most of us are to some extent, of course you believe that the change you fear is a bad thing.

If we’re subconsciously looking for reasons to justify our fear of change, it’s not hard to find them in TV broadcasts, even if the events portrayed are rare and remote.

By: False Flag

False Flag — Wed, 04 Nov 2009 19:15:44 +0000

I think the major flaw in your theory occurs at Point 4. Although people buy more things when they are scared or depressed, there is little evidence to suggest that an advertisement that they -see- while they are scared and depressed will cause them to -later- buy the product being advertised. This is a rather big assumption of collusion, and is also the least parsimonious argument. It is just as (if not more) likely that people pay more attention to bad / unusual news, and that TV execs care primarily about number of viewers. This explanation requires no second or third term assumptions about what people do when they are done watching TV, it simply impacts the most realistic and immediate bottom line.

Also, this more parsimonious explanation would help answer the question: If people were simply depressed or scared (as opposed to interested) in the news being presented, why wouldn’t news outlets that present less depressing and scary news be doing better, since presumably people don’t like being depressed and scared, and would choose less depressing news channels.

What I’m getting at here is that you are assuming one extra step than is necessary or realistic. You say:

“It�s not a conspiracy, it�s the consequence of some basic behavior research and the motivation to help advertisers sell products.”

I don’t think that’s the answer. You’re adding, unnecessarily, but step of wanting to help advertisers to sell products. That’s not really what’s going on. It’s about “getting people to watch the channel.” That’s all that’s required.

Also, I might add that the title of your posting seems to be more about broadcast news than TV in general =)