New with a question - Page 3

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I'm not sure I agree with you on that part. Media seems to love making mountains out of molehills because it's sensationalistic, so it will get viewers, and they have a lot of time to fill. It seems to me like they take every opportunity to make everything a War Between X and Y!!!!! I don't think they're as interested in supporting pharm companies, or status quo, as they are in getting viewers.

Except, viewers don't do them any good unless they have people paying for commercial time because of those numbers. Try watching a tv show and the commercials. Count how many of those commercials are for pharmaceuticals. And watch how often people take medicines on shows.

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

I'm not sure I agree with you on that part. Media seems to love making mountains out of molehills because it's sensationalistic, so it will get viewers, and they have a lot of time to fill. It seems to me like they take every opportunity to make everything a War Between X and Y!!!!! I don't think they're as interested in supporting pharm companies, or status quo, as they are in getting viewers.

The media does not have to support status quo. It is strong all on its own.

And it can't support AntiVax for a variety reasons.

They can support glam/sexy/eyecatching/sensationalist/stuff which is the wall to wall coverage of JonKatedrama/Bradjolina/BullockJesseJames whatnot for ever and a day. Antivaxers, even sexy eyecatching ones like JennyM/JimCarey? That's really a drop in the ocean. And even then they still slam Jenny.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by ammiga

Except, viewers don't do them any good unless they have people paying for commercial time because of those numbers. Try watching a tv show and the commercials. Count how many of those commercials are for pharmaceuticals. And watch how often people take medicines on shows.

And I can't get on board with that logic because they're willing to go after almost everyone else, advertisers or not.

[heathergirl67]

Originally Posted by Tracy

The media does not have to support status quo. It is strong all on its own.

And it can't support AntiVax for a variety reasons.

They can support glam/sexy/eyecatching/sensationalist/stuff which is the wall to wall coverage of JonKatedrama/Bradjolina/BullockJesseJames whatnot for ever and a day. Antivaxers, even sexy eyecatching ones like JennyM/JimCarey? That's really a drop in the ocean. And even then they still slam Jenny.

Celebrity dramas aren't the only thing covered by the news networks. And the vax debate has the emotional appeal of our children! They take every opportunity they get.

[Tracy]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

Celebrity dramas aren't the only thing covered by the news networks. And the vax debate has the emotional appeal of our children! They take every opportunity they get.

the traction that the news media can get from vax debate is wildly limited.
It is just not that 'sexy'. Yeah, there is some component of emotion/fear...but underneath that emotion the media has to go to the boring stuff (science, studies (or not) and so they just can't go full steam on it. So, the whole thing is just limited. Maybe a 3 minute segment on GMA once every 9 months. Or 3 minutes in the evening news every six months or so. It might get a bit more action when someone writes a book like JennyM and she goes on Larry king for one hour. But again. Just not that puffed up like other "scare stories" and frankly, if you want to see scare stories and vacccines... google "Swine Flu" and there you go!!! In that case you are right, that is nothing but fear, fear, fear...but they (media) don't have to offer up any hard work like 'the other side' perspective. They just repeat the press release of the CDC and bingo.... fear, fear.
So, yeah, in that case you are right.
But the other? nope just not that much by comparison.

fwiw--my background is media.

[ammiga]

Originally Posted by heathergirl67

And I can't get on board with that logic because they're willing to go after almost everyone else, advertisers or not.

What other industries have they taken head-on, with the very real risk of losing a huge portion of their advertising income? Once the show content is revealed to potential advertisers, watch the funding and profits for that show disappear. It would never get aired, since they won't make any money on those shows and they risk losing the advertisers permanently.

A couple of the pharma companies are also large shareholders of ABC and NBC, so odds of either of those networks putting out anti-vax or vax-suspicious messages are pretty slim.