Is the "new" media a good thing?

While I have always had my doubts that the new type of media (citizen reporting, 24 hour networks, etc.) may have its downfalls, the positives would always outweigh the bad. It was not until the past week or two that I have realized that the media is failing to do its job.

With the constant coverage of Anna Nicole Smith's death, the coverage of the trial (which had decided who gets custody of Smith's body), and the coverage of Britney Spears shaving her head, it has just been too much. Events such as Al-Qaeda becoming reorganized in Pakistan and Iran not complying with UN's request to stop enriching uranium have slipped from the headlines.

One of the jobs of the media is to be a watchdog for the people. Over the past months there have been several salmonella out breaks in food processing plants and all the media did was warn people that it was happening. No investigative reports. No hard hitting interviews. At least from what I saw.

At a job interview, a man told me that the future of newspapers was in the local news. He continued to say that if people want to hear about what is going on in the world they can turn on CNN or FoxNews, watch it for a few minutes and get their fill of national and world news.
What he said is correct and wrong at the same time. He is correct in saying that after watching only a few minutes of CNN or FoxNews a person can get a good idea of what is going on in the world that day (mainly becuase the 24 hour networks only run a few stories a day over and over again). He is wrong because the couple of stories that the networks chose to show are not a complete picture of what is going on in the world. I can guarantee that no network had a story on the genocide in Darfur since around September. The BBC has had several stories (on their website) the past couple of months pertaining to troop levels and the ongoing negotiations between the Sudanese government and the UN. But who is to blame for the public's lack of interest in national and global news, unless it pertains to stars (not the ones in space)?

My proposal is unless the 24 hour networks do not start doing their job, acutally start informing people of the world around them, that they should be disbanded. Then sign control of those networks to MTV so we can watch countless hours of teenage reality television. But seriously, maybe the news media needs to take a step back and look at its roots. Look back to when there wasn't a constant need to fill 24 hours, a time when journalists took pride in their work and did a service to the people. I'm talking about the "muckrakers" and the Woodwards and Bernsteins of journalism.

Landmine Video

This public service announcement was aired only for a few days in the United States last year. The reason it was pulled from the air was because people found it too traumatizing.
I agree that it is a very unpleasant scene, but it's only depicting what people in mine-laden counties have to deal with day after day. A farmer who plows his field [in a mine-laden countryl] hits a mine. He could lose a leg or even worse -- his life. Children playing in a field are often subject to the same fate. But what can be done to stop this?
People need to care. This commerical is one way to do that. It was the perfect commerical to get people to care. After it was aired, it made many people upset. But people once again chose to turn a blind eye to what was going on in the world.
The United States, one of the largest mine producing nations, needs to sign the internataional mine-ban treaty. This treaty is designed to stop the use, development, production, stockpile and transfer of anti-personel mines, and to stop assisting or encouraging individuals, private companies, the military, or non-state parties in violating the treaty.
Several organzations are already working to clear the world of land mines. For more information check out www.landmines.org and www.mineaction.org

Again the American Media Fails (Atleast the 24 Hour Networks)

Today when I turned my television to CNN I was surprised to see that Anna Nicole Smith had passed away during the day. While she is a celebrity and in America celebrities do command a lot of our attention it was no surprise that CNN was devoting coverage to her untimly death. I did not have a problem with the American media covering her death. What I did have a problem with is this.
Larry King had already decided to devote an hour of his program to Smith. A entire hour. 60 minutes to hear about "life-saving efforts as family and friends reflect on her life."
What angers me is that her death is taking attention away from other important news worthy events. For example, Two Palestinian Factions Signed a deal today. This story will slip from the spot light due to the death of Smith. The New York Times website and BBCNews.com are the only two sites that do not have Smith's death as their lead. (the "other sites" are CNN, Fox News, and MSNBC).

Another example of a story that is not very important in the grand scheme of things is the apparent breakdown of Capt. Lisa Nowak who drove over 900 miles to confront a woman who was dating the same man that Nowak was. While this story was interesting and odd (mainly because of the diaper Nowak wore on her drive) what was the significance of it? By letting the American people know of this distraught astronaut what was the point? Did this story command that much attention because of the fact that Nowak was a astronaut?

This is not the first time that the news media has jumped on the so called bandwagon and covered events that will generate ratings thus producing more profits. But who is to blame? The media for listening to their audiences and covering "soft" news? Or is is the people who do not demand more substance in their news?