Hacker News Reader

Comment by hasenj | Hacker News Reader

> I can see some people saying they are being shut down because they are supporters of radical Islam but from what I've seen of them this is pure nonsense.

"pure nonsense" is exactly what it is :)

The only reason it seems that way from the western perspective is because:

1) They interview Islamist figures 2) They don't portray them as evil

But they also interview people from every color of the political spectrum.

> given that it comes from a part of the world where free speech isn't a concept rooted in law.

I was shocked that most channels in North American report mostly on local news (e.g. man bitten by a dog), and if they ever report on global events, it's usually brief. And that's when they run any news at all; most TV is focused on entertainment 100%. From where I stood, it sounded like some sort of a conspiracy to keep the people ignorant about what's going on in the world around them.

View on HN

"When you're young, you look at television and think, There's a conspiracy. The networks have conspired to dumb us down. But when you get a little older, you realize that's not true. The networks are in business to give people exactly what they want. That's a far more depressing thought. Conspiracy is optimistic! You can shoot the bastards! We can have a revolution! But the networks are really in business to give people what they want. It's the truth." – Steve Jobs in WIRED magazine, February 1996

That describes my experience perfectly!

Statements like this are a result of our innate desire for everything to be black and white. Unfortunately, that's not the way things work. While the news networks are indeed in the business of providing what people want, they also have a hand in shaping their audience's desires.

To lay the blame of crappy news solely at the feet of the audience is about as short sighted as the conspiracy notion IMHO.

>While the news networks are indeed in the business of providing what people want, they also have a hand in shaping their audience's desires.

Yeah. It's a classic feedback loop. Surely this is obvious?

If your definition of "obvious" is a feedback loop, then you clearly have a very sophisticated, very select group of acquaintances. To many people I know, this concept is far from obvious.

>very sophisticated, very select group of acquaintances

I meant in the context of HN. That's a beautiful way to describe this place :)

I don't disagree. While Americans never come across as remotely curious about global affairs for the most part, not unless it directly involves them, perhaps it is because they have just never been exposed to a globally focused media.

I personally despise this stereotype of Americans. There may be more than a bit of truth to it, but I hate it. I try to represent the opposite, and those that I choose to associate with do as well. I also try to represent the best of what "being an American" can be.

An unfortunate stereotype; but it's also accurate.

It's also accurate for most of the world, period. Very few people actually care what is going on outside their sphere of influence.

I think the reason such thinking is particularly and unfairly associated with Americans is because your media agencies tend to be the biggest, the loudest and the most partisan. Plus America is a damn big place, so it is noticeable when many millions of people aren't interested in something...

I often think that those dumping general criticism like this on the US should take a careful look at their own country first, and see if their criticism is even more general than they are making it :)

The United States and it's citizens are stuck on black & white (right and wrong etc), we always have been. You want a real grey area? Try Russia where bribes and laws are close cousins. The problem with B&W is it leaves no room for the most logical explanation for most apparent conspiracies.

I encourage you to see the documentary "Manufacturing Consent: Noam Chomsky and the Media".

The whole thing is on Google Video: http://video.google.com/videoplay?docid=-5631882395226827730...

(Better yet, read Chomsky's book on which the documentary is based, "Manufacturing Consent: The Political Economy of the Mass Media".)

From where I stood, it sounded like some sort of a conspiracy to keep the people ignorant about what's going on in the world around them.

It's a conspiracy where the people are a part! The media influences expectations. The expectations shape the market. The market holds the purse strings of the media.

With a cycle like that, all it takes is small corrections, which can be undertaken by organizations with sufficient resources, to maintain general control.

http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Manufacturing_Consent:_The_Poli...

Actually, I wish my local news actually only reported local news. I get the feeling that to survive in the next decade, the successful ones will do just that.

As to the national networks, if it doesn't happen on the coasts or in Texas, it pretty much is ignored unless it is a natural disaster. Heck, the coverage of Nashville flooding was pathetic compared to the dollar cost of the damage. Drew Curtis's (of Fark fame) book has a chapter on it and some interesting stories from Fark.

Reply on news.ycombinator.com