To the OP - 1) I think now there is an excess of 'opinion' which is being propagated or somewhat represented as fact and 2) viewers are now more than ever being treated as consumers.
With the advent of the internet and the shift in mainstream media, there are a lot of different views being shown - these include areas such as economics, politics, international conflicts, etc. Basically anything that has a hard time being factually proven, will be debated.
There isn't a lot of chatter about the validity of particle physics.
Mainstream media has taken those views in some cases and 'branded' them. FOX would be the obvious example where they have marketed themselves to the conservative ideology and used that for their own benefit (market share, ratings, etc). People don't tune into FOX to hear how right Obama is, but rather how wrong he is. The execs at FOX know this and skew their programming accordingly.
The goal isn't to inform, but to get the viewer to consume the product (Bill O'Reilly, etc).
There is a reason that the Sun employs Eric Francis. He gets hits. He makes money. He speaks to a certain segment of the population.
Eklund is successful because of the same reasons.
People want this and if someone gets rich in the process, then it will be provided for everyone.
If there was a demand for the 'facts', then it would be provided. But the truth isn't making a lot of money. Instead, it is cheaper to provide "aerial support" to some random fire or other cheap storyline - and it gets you the same ratings.
I'll add, this isn't an attack on FOX and their leanings per se, but rather just how they market to their product.
|