My next rambling...
Every one who reads news papers try to "share" or "exchange" the knowledge/information with other. Which might mean that they are eager to display that they are "thinking" about the happenings around them, and that they have an opinion about those happenings.
A news paper might publish a lot of news every day in news paper. It may not be humanly possible for people to "discuss" about all the news that they publish. The dicussions might get confined to very few.
The big question is how do we decide which are important, which are not?
While, normally it is for people to decide which is important for them, or think about how the news affects their lives, it is common for people to discuss about the "prominent news" or "headlines" as are properly termed.
So, it is the news papers which are determining, what people should be thinking and discussing. This is not reducing the burden on people, but killing their own thought process.
This is my "poor translation" from the one of the posts in a media blog(This post was in Telugu)
While the author's comments are about some other issues, I found the comments very relevant, and I have always felt the same about all the news papers and more so about the "24 hour news channels".
While with news paper, you have few other pages to read apart from "main page", with 24 hour news channels, you do not have an option to listen to "other news" apart from what they show.
I donot watch the news channels these days. I stopped watching news channels. But while flipping channels, I happen to see how degraded the news quality have become. They "impose" "news" on you.
First they try to find "who is to be blamed" (I am talking about cricket)
Greg Chappel is easy target. Conduct a "trial" without the "accused" being in the picture. The irony is "every one" is an expert there. They extend their microphone to every one including a child on the street(unfortunately they never come to me.)
I have a way out to write here in blog even if they didnt not give me a chance to appear of National television with some comments :)
Then they find their own justifications, or get anonymous news, news from "trusted sources" etc.(like Greg Chappel accusing senior players)
They ask "Senior players" for reactions. There are some "anonnymous" comments from some "senior players", and there is a "famous" interview of Sachin where he made some "comments"
Now the discussion starts as to "whether Sachin is justified in doing it?"
well... As I said I donot watch news channels these days... but these are just "headlines" which I watch in between my other favourite programs.
A news paper might publish a lot of news every day in news paper. It may not be humanly possible for people to "discuss" about all the news that they publish. The dicussions might get confined to very few.
The big question is how do we decide which are important, which are not?
While, normally it is for people to decide which is important for them, or think about how the news affects their lives, it is common for people to discuss about the "prominent news" or "headlines" as are properly termed.
So, it is the news papers which are determining, what people should be thinking and discussing. This is not reducing the burden on people, but killing their own thought process.
This is my "poor translation" from the one of the posts in a media blog(This post was in Telugu)
While the author's comments are about some other issues, I found the comments very relevant, and I have always felt the same about all the news papers and more so about the "24 hour news channels".
While with news paper, you have few other pages to read apart from "main page", with 24 hour news channels, you do not have an option to listen to "other news" apart from what they show.
I donot watch the news channels these days. I stopped watching news channels. But while flipping channels, I happen to see how degraded the news quality have become. They "impose" "news" on you.
First they try to find "who is to be blamed" (I am talking about cricket)
Greg Chappel is easy target. Conduct a "trial" without the "accused" being in the picture. The irony is "every one" is an expert there. They extend their microphone to every one including a child on the street(unfortunately they never come to me.)
I have a way out to write here in blog even if they didnt not give me a chance to appear of National television with some comments :)
Then they find their own justifications, or get anonymous news, news from "trusted sources" etc.(like Greg Chappel accusing senior players)
They ask "Senior players" for reactions. There are some "anonnymous" comments from some "senior players", and there is a "famous" interview of Sachin where he made some "comments"
Now the discussion starts as to "whether Sachin is justified in doing it?"
well... As I said I donot watch news channels these days... but these are just "headlines" which I watch in between my other favourite programs.
Labels: media
