Almost As Good As Chocolate - Latest Comments in Elizabeth Edwards on the pathetic coverage of the elections

Re: Elizabeth Edwards on the pathetic coverage of the elections

Shripriya — Sat, 10 May 2008 21:33:40 -0000

@Prithvi - yo! welcome back! I like the Economist subscribers idea. I see you have no fear of being labeled an elitist ;)

Re: Elizabeth Edwards on the pathetic coverage of the elections

Prithvi — Sat, 10 May 2008 07:54:33 -0000

The news and media space resembles a commons rather than a market - an unregulated public resource - where as Garrett Hardin pointed out in his essay the Tragedy of the Commons - the pursuit of individual self-interest just leads to a loss for the community as a whole.

The costs of acquiring all the "correct" information to cast a single vote that won't affect the overall outcome of a political process is irrational on so many levels. There's a cool book on this subject by Bryan Caplan called The Myth of the Rational Voter.

The alternative is clear - people should earn their votes - become supervoters - at the polling booth they should be given a basic test to test for economic competency and political awareness or perhaps this year we can just enfranchise the Economist subscribers :-)

Re: Elizabeth Edwards on the pathetic coverage of the elections

Krishna — Tue, 06 May 2008 08:19:27 -0000

@Shripriya,
I agree on the public service commitment of corporations (especially since they were given their air bandwidth FREE!!- one of the biggest Govt. handouts in History!) but my point is that there are good news alternatives (BBC on cable, NPR on free air)but too few take advantage of them

There is of course, the chicken-egg problem: "Has bad news dumbed the population down so much that they prefer bad news?" I could go on, but I'll stop for fear of being labeled an elitist

Re: Elizabeth Edwards on the pathetic coverage of the elections

Shripriya — Sun, 04 May 2008 02:50:10 -0000

That is true - the market gets what it asks for. However, the issue is that do news organizations have a duty to try to elevate the level or not? One could argue that as a public service, they should try to educate and illuminate rather than just entertain and cater to lowest common denominator.

Re: Elizabeth Edwards on the pathetic coverage of the elections

Krishna — Thu, 01 May 2008 15:28:12 -0000

The issue of "the media is soooo pathetic" rears its ugly head every few years. Everyone bitches and moans and suggests no alternatives!

If you thought a car was ugly, would you buy it? Then why do you watch a stupid reality show that you think is bad? Or watch the 9 PM news if you think it's rubbish? Don't tell me you can't find something better, more entertaining, or more informative!

These are corporations- they respond to your watching & your dollars (thanks to ratings, these are the same things). If people watch crap, corporations will give you crap. People get what they pay for!

If you believe, like me, that the news is a "special" category, and that The Economist Magazine will never be mainstream because "people" are just too stupid, then you need something like the BBC (non-commercial)... wait you have PBS, and NPR! And not enough people watch/listen to it!

Want better news? Stop blaming the companies and start looking to your own behaviour! Turn off that TV, buy/rent a DVD, read your news on the web, get a subscription to The Economist Magazine and don't pick up that newsstand edition of whatever celeb mag you buy.