h2g2 The Hitchhiker's Guide to the Galaxy: Earth Edition

<> (Lady Scott)

Oh, quite agree with you there. On the other hand, if US citizens showed more interest in their news programmes then *that* would become a place for the big bucks advertisers (who of course control what is shown on television) to place their bucks.

But why watch boring old depressing news when you can watch Seinfeld repeats . . .


az

<> (Woodpigeon)

Oh, do I get extra points for not even knowing who the hell Preston and Chantelle are?

Still not sure about this 'supply and demand' thing when it comes to news programmes though. Should 'the sort of news' a specific public sector is interested in getting be the thing that shapes how news programmes are presented and which news they choose to show?

Are national news programmes actually edited in order to attract more of an audience?


az

Possibly not, but to be honest it's a whole new level of conspiracy-theory to assume that it's done any other way.

I'm assuming here that Spanish news is a whole shed-load more enlightened than their game shows and their after midnaight broadcasting policy. Can you really say that Spain is such a paradise of overseas news coverage or does Beckham still beat out Botswana, even in Spain?

>>> Are national news programmes actually edited in order to attract more of an audience?

You bet they are.

This is all about fundamental self-interest. People don't necessarily watch the news just to find out about what happened that day. Many do, but I would say that more people watch the news to see how external events affect their lives. Someone with money in the stock market might want to see how the markets went, a farmer may want to check grain prices, a person with a sister in Florida might be worried about a hurricane coming her way. For every event on the news, there are some people who are affected. Local news takes this to a more extreme level than national news, basically viewing every story through by how it affects the people within viewing distance. (which I find annoying, so I generally don't watch local news)

That said, there are options for people who truly want to get international news. I check the BBC news website every morning. CNN and the cable news networks have fewer time constraints (especially in the afternoon and morning) so they can focus on international news a bit more, but they're also more political than other news sources I'd say. There are magazines that focus on international news, newspapers generally have a section, radio programs, etc. The news is there. It's not hidden! No one is forced to watch local or nationally oriented news. International stuff is there for people who are interested in such things. I have no problem getting to it.

Furthermore, it's silly to assume that evening newscasts and newspapers (which I think are the media most mentioned here) are basically how all Americans get their news. Newspaper circulation has been steadily falling for some time now, and the evening news doesn't have *nearly* the sway it's had on Americans in the past.

<> (Blues)

Well, yeah, it is. Worst tv I've ever seen in my life except for the news broadcasts and the documentaries.

<>

Um, Beckham is nuthin special here. And no, I never said Spanish news broadcasts were a 'paradise of overseas news', simply that we seem to get a fair bit of international news as well as news pertaining to Spain.


az

<>

Me too, Jodan. Which I have set to the 'international' version.

Hey the recent Canadian election results were even their front page! Didn't show up anywhere in the Grauniad.

<>

Well, I wonder how much people are actually interested in the news anymore. I wonder how many people just go 'oh, another weather-caused disaster, another war, another riot, another this-or-that' and just tune out because they don't feel they are personally affected.


az

Ok, look. The point here is that as usual this is in danger of turning intto a yank bashing thread and I very much doubt that they are the only country in the world that has a crappy policy on international news. I'm betting China, Korea, India, a lot of the Muslim world and most of Africa have pretty p*ss poor standards of geography knowledge and international news as well. Quite possibly the USSR as well. And I know for a fact your average South American thinks the world ends at the end of his town.

And nobody ever criticises them for it.

It is one thing to state that George W. ought to know what the hell is bombing and why, it is quite another to continually harp on about the average guy in the street. Not knowing where Burundi is *isn't* the worst crime int he world and it doesn't make the US population into a threat to world security or even particualarly stupid compared to the rest of us.

Well, at least now a few more people around the world know that Denmark exists.

Honest Iago,

You're not too much a geography dear. I got 46 out of 50 on the US states (lost my way in the mountains a bit) and all the others right: Africa, Canada, Australia... well I need to get out more, don't I?



China has been insular for millennia, and I don't doubt that the Chinese have little geographical knowledge outside the East Asian region. From my experience of Chinese news (English language version, so probably somewhat more international anyway), they had a fair bit of international news, insanely potted though it was. I'll never forget how they reported Saddam's last election result, saying he got "a perfect 100%" without the slightest hint of a wry smile.

>Hey the recent Canadian election results were even their front page! Didn't show up anywhere in the Grauniad.<

Well, 'well oiled Canadian democracy returns candidate amidst minimum of fuss and no claims of ballot rigging' isn't going to be big time news in the UK press, I suspect. If anything it is a mark of just how effective Canada is at remaining below the radar, and my overwhelming impression is that that is where they are happy being. Nobody in the UK has paid the remotest attention to Canadian politics since Trudeau, and that was because he was...colourful.

As for why people don't watch the news, it's because it's f*cking depressing. When I get in from a hard days work and sit with my wife I don't really need endless pictures of poverty, war, disaster and political spin doctoring.

I have enough problems of my own atm without needing to try and understand the rest of the worlds *all* the time. So yeah, I miss bits, and the older I get the less I care about which bits I miss. Because one thing that life is teaching me is that if i miss todays natural disaster/war/whatever, there will sure as sh*t be another one tomorrow.

My point isn't that people (including me) don't know where Burundi is - that's understandable, since you rarely if ever hear anything about it. But I would expect people to have a good idea, for instance (referring back to the example I gave in Post 1), where Ireland is, and that Europe is not "that island with England on it".

<> (Blues)

Well, I don't think this is turning into a 'yank-bashing' thread. Also, be careful. A lot of US-ians wouldn't like being referred to as yanks.

I suspect that education levels in some of the countries you mentioned might not be totally 'up to western standards' so one might concede that geography perhaps isn't one of the main subjects taught in these places.

Meanwhile, the US is the most powerful country in the world! Um, which world is that? Which countries are they the most powerful over? You don't think people might wonder about this and want to know? Like, where exactly Iraq is?

<>

Who is continually harping? It's a very shameful fact that one's own president doesn't know where certain countries are - shouldn't that be a primary concern of his? It's even more shameful if some people end up thinking - 'Well, if our pres doesn't know where these places are then why should we?'


az

Just out of interest what *is* Spain's after midnight broadcasting policy?

Well, that would be Blues checking out the after-midnight porn shown on one of the local Seville tv channels I reckon . . .


az

Woodpigeon - "I don't really buy the argument that the media should show people what's going on outside the US. In a world of free-choice, the media are showing what people want to know".

It depends which media you're talking about. Commercial media will show whatever will make them the most money, while public service media will show what they think the people ought to be aware of, but keeping a wary eye on the viewing/sales figures at the same time. Since the vast majority of media is commercial, and since you have to work a bit more at watching/listening to public service programming, it's a case of do the people get they want, or want what they get?

Let's get back to the original purpose of the thread though, and use an example to illustrate the perils of not being aware of world events.

When planes flew into the WTC and the Pentagon, far too many Americans believed that their country had been attacked for no reason other than the fact that it was America, because the vast majority of American media had never reported what led up to those attacks - American governmental and commercial involvement in the Middle East and Afghanistan/Russia war, among other things. Even in the immediate aftermath of the attacks, most American media concentrated on... no, let me rephrase that - fomented and perpetuated the myth that this had been an unprovoked attack on America by people who simply hated America for what it is - a (supposed) land of freedom. There was virtually no analysis of the events of previous decades which had culminated in the attacks. I suspect that the same was true of most British media btw.

So, an ignorance of previous (world) events on the part of almost 300,000,000 people has allowed the government of those people to ride roughshod over several international laws, spout lies about their reasons for invading another country, line the pockets of a small handful of people with several millions and billions of $$$, and get away with it. In fact, they did it so well that they even managed to take in people who really ought to have known better *COUGH*Tony Blair*COUGH*. Brilliantly done.

A simplistic view of things? Maybe, but a sound one I think. Television - the opiate of the masses. Yeah, it really is.

Actually, the purpose of the thread was to point out a lack of info about geography. Until my Peace Corps friend pointed out where it was, precisely, I couldn't find Lesotho on the map. But I still knew all about the AIDS crisis in that particular area.

Having said that, as an American, I could get into an argument about 9/11, but instead, I ask you this... from your point of view, what exactly were the contributing factors in that attack? You didn't mention any in particular, and I'm curious about where you think they came from, specifically.

Ah, I was afraid you'd ask me that

I don't know them well enough to give anyone an explanation. I've seen, heard and read what I consider to be reliable and credible news stories, reports and analyses which have informed me that there were convoluted goings-on for many, many years which influenced the attackers to do what they did**. I'm really bad with details and with following such intricate stories, but I can absorb them well enough at the time to form an opinion. It really puts the kibosh on being able to discuss and debate it though

**That is, if they even did what they did. I've also seen rather less credible and reliable stories purporting that the attacks were a government plot... but that's a whole nother thread

(replying to the original post) I remember there being a lot of jokes in my home state (most probably exaggerated at the least) about how hard it was for those of us here to get tickets to the Atlanta Olympic games since we were trying to "go around the international rules by pretending to be in the US." I live in the state of New Mexico. All "wow, do you speak Spanish?" jokes aside, it is a relatively rare but still disheartening occurence to encounter fellow citizens of my own nation that seem to think I live in a foreign country particularly when everyone knows about aliens that have landed in Roswell (our fifth largest "city") and nearly everyone knows about nuclear weapons (first developed and tested here). I guess it's not surprising, but it's still very very annoying. I have a lot of sympathy and no small amount of shame for my fellow countrymen, although this isn't restricted soley to the US.

- JD

The whole Americans dont know what part of london Scotland is in type comments are just a comedy of manners.

We, meaning those who know Americans but arent American take the p*** because that country is more wealthy and powerful than ours. In much the same way that in the old days of the class system the comedians of the music hall would take the p** out of the ruling class for the same reasons.

My favourite comedy of manners is "The Importance of being Ernest". Where Mrs Malaprop makes a comment that in her day a girl would learn at school "the names of the caontagious countries of the world".

Well what is the point of most of us learning the names of the contiguous countries of the world?

I could learn the name of every species of tree on the planet and it would be totaly pointless if If I didnt know how my choices as a consumer were affecting deforestation.

As far as Ive seen the news and information available in different countries is as equally self centred from one place to the next.

US news seems more insular in some ways but then it does have populations *within individual states* that are bigger than the poppulations of some European countries.


one love