Recyclers of useless information

There's a constant debate on the quality of what we read in the newspapers or see on the TV. Which is the cause and which is the result: the media publish low-brow contents because that's what the majority of consumers are interested in or - the consumers say - we read/view this low quality stuff because that's all that we get to see in papers and on TV? Modern media have become recyclers of useless information.

I came across a very interesting article in the Daily Telegraph on the quality of British media and inter-relation of celebrities and tabloids. And paparazzi, who intrude on the personal life of individuals who may be famous figures in politics, sports or showbiz. I was struck by the open self-criticism of the journalist who focused on the British tabloids:

"...On this crowded little island [Britain], seething with paparazzi and sinking beneath celebrity magazines, a famous person's every move – from the acquisition of a new girlfriend to a trip to the local store – is diligently reported, recorded, published, and then communally sifted for meaning. We have become world-class recyclers of useless information."

It's interesting to read that reportedly the Brits considered the Americans obsessed with "celebrity news" but, according to the columnist, the UK media are no better:

"...In recent months, Hugh Grant has hurled a Tupperware container of baked beans at a pestering photographer. In Los Angeles last week, the actor Pierce Brosnan, who seems the most level-headed of men, allegedly attacked a photographer who took pictures of him and his children leaving a restaurant."

That's the reality of big markets such as the US and UK. But the same is happening, only on a smaller scale, in other countries too.

Do we really need this kind of information???


WHO ARE YOU WEARING http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=o6OyIujULUk

Broadsheet vs crapsheet

A number of people have asked why "quality" papers publish graphic images of crime and violence on their front pages. The answer is very simple.

The competitive information environment has led to the so-called phenomenon of consumer attention deficit. People pay less attention to marketing messages, adverts and promotional slogans. This means that it's harder, more than ever, to catch the readers'/viewers' (i.e. any consumers') attention. Falling readership means that editors and publishers must desperately take steps to get a fraction of attention from readers.

Therefore, unfortunately, national papers publish pictures and headlines which should be the realm of tabloid media. The convergence of quality papers and tabloids is evident. Take alone the format: when the group that controls The Sun, the British tabloid paper, bought The Times, a quality paper, the latter has "shrunk" from the broad format to a smaller one. But that's not the only reason I prefer The Daily Telegraph or The Financial Times.:)

The distinction of quality papers and tabloids in smaller markets such as Lithuania is even less significant...

What papers do you read, if any?

Papers. Photo by Giedrius CP.