The "Care"s and "Care Not"s

By: Matthew Felling
Topics: Mega-Media Trends

(AP)

Saint Teresa once wrote that "More tears are shed over answered prayers than unanswered ones."

And in yesterday's Washington Post, Markus Prior basically says that goes for the 21st century media landscape as well.

As reported in this space a few weeks back, one of those studies came out that showed that Americans are – more or less – just as informed and uninformed as they were back in the 80s, despite the fact that our options have increased at a geometric rate. You would have thought that the explosion of media outlets would have led to a similar one in terms of public awareness. Not so.

(Kids, be sure to ask your parents about when you used to have to walk over to your TV and turn a dial to change channels. Then, once you've mastered that concept, ask about "UHF.")

Prior notes that cable news, Internet news sites, podcasts and alternative media have proliferated and the public's awareness has flatlined.

Now that Americans can choose among countless channels and Web sites, the role of motivation is key. Many people's reasons for watching television or surfing the Web do not include learning about politics. Today's media users seek out the content they really like. Unfortunately for a political system that benefits from an informed citizenry, few people really like the news.

The problem, then, isn't that there are "have"s and "have not"s -- that that digital divide would have been addressed by the multitude of options. The problem is simpler than that, and yet at the same time immensely difficult to even begin to get one's head around: It's the "care"s versus the "care not"s. And that ratio doesn't seem to be budging. At least not nearly as much as we'd expect in the information age.

There's news with a celebrity vibe. There's news with a humorous approach – and news with a distinctly humorless mindset. There's politically newsy news. There's lefty news. And righty news. But no matter how many teaspoons of sugar we heap on the medicine of news, there is still a sizable constituency of people who don't know and don't care.

The ultimate question, then, is do we shrug off these people altogether and just worry about the people who opt-in to current events and political awareness? Do we package the news – as many media outlets now do – as a hybrid of Anna Nicoles and Miss New Jerseys and try to lure in the less interested with breadcrumbs of trivialities? Or is there another way, one that doesn't feel like you're aiming for the lowest common denominator while informing the largest crowd?

1 Comment Have Your Say
Email Story Send to a Friend
Share This Tell Your Friends
Tweet This Tweet This
More Share It

Add a Comment


by joycewest July 17, 2007 4:17 PM EDT: Ah, but people ARE actually more informed now, but not about politics. Wouldn't you say there's been an explosion in the understanding of such topics as, let's see, celebrity addictions, crime scene investigations, or the causes of catty behavior on reality shows? Or look at the number of people who now know how to make a really good You Tube video. There is so much more in the world than silly politics. Think of all the recipes now available on the Internet! I never have to buy a cookbook again!
What can you do? Ten or twenty years ago I thought all we really needed to get more readers were great pictures, great headlines, and great leads. How do you compete for people's free time with the cornucopia of entertainment that is out there? I don't think you can, unless your audience has some sense of civic-mindedness.; Reply to this comment