Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
Do you think stories on the Obama couple/family make the public, in general, like his policies more or less or have no effect on them?
Is there a point, by the sheer number of personal stories, that you think make the general public suspicious due to overexposure or do they want to see these stories and photos keep on coming?
I suspect that we here who support and don't support President Obama's policies are unaffected by People Magazine type stories and photos even in supposedly news magazines so I'm not asking how it affects you, but for your opinion of how it affects the voting public that don't pay a lot of attention to politics.
I was reading this Pajamas Media opinion piece in how the author says he wishes the news magazines would do a little less couples stories and more stories like what Obama did at Harvard and how healthcare legislation was drafted or how it is being negotiated.
But I suspect, the news magazines doing puff pieces, like the NY Times Magazine he mentions in his column, aren't trying to attract people like us to read its content but are fishing for readers in the People Magazine readership to increase their revenue. Would that be your assessment? In other words, it's less about politics and more about business so if dumbing down news content is what it takes to stay afloat, they'll do it.
Do you think stories on the Obama couple/family make the public, in general, like his policies more or less or have no effect on them?
Is there a point, by the sheer number of personal stories, that you think make the general public suspicious due to overexposure or do they want to see these stories and photos keep on coming?
I suspect that we here who support and don't support President Obama's policies are unaffected by People Magazine type stories and photos even in supposedly news magazines so I'm not asking how it affects you, but for your opinion of how it affects the voting public that don't pay a lot of attention to politics.
I was reading this Pajamas Media opinion piece in how the author says he wishes the news magazines would do a little less couples stories and more stories like what Obama did at Harvard and how healthcare legislation was drafted or how it is being negotiated.
But I suspect, the news magazines doing puff pieces, like the NY Times Magazine he mentions in his column, aren't trying to attract people like us to read its content but are fishing for readers in the People Magazine readership to increase their revenue. Would that be your assessment? In other words, it's less about politics and more about business so if dumbing down news content is what it takes to stay afloat, they'll do it.
Most people do not care about politics, politicians, political issues or political parties.
But "People in the News" grabs their interest, success stories and trainwrecks.
And if they are photogenic, so much the better.
It's not fishing, it's what sells. While 4 million might watch Fox News in the evening, but 9.8 million watch Jon & Kate, and People Magazine (4 million subscribers) isn't a Top 10 seller for covering the latest (political) news from Washington.
Most people view politics as faceless, cold and cruel, no matter which party is being talked about. And this coverage is about the people and personalities, not what is happening in the real world.
I think they counter the hideous, ridiculous, and outrageous stories that are being spread by the insane, extreme right. Given both sides of the story, the vast majority of Americans recognize that President Obama and his family are great for our country.
Most of us (the rational ones, anyway) can separate personal lives from professional lives. And there's a natural curiosity about people making the news (for whatever reason - sports, the arts, politics, ... ) and a desire to know more about the person.
It's not dumbing down the news content - it's a focus on something other than the issue of the day. There's plenty of "hard" news content - more than at any other time in our lives - from which people can choose.
As to how it affects those in the country who are blessed with not having an obsession with politics, I would think that they are genuinely interested in the Obamas as people. I also think that the vast majority of them like the Obamas as people, in large measure because they can see a bit of themselves in the First Family.
Most of us (the rational ones, anyway) can separate personal lives from professional lives. And there's a natural curiosity about people making the news (for whatever reason - sports, the arts, politics, ... ) and a desire to know more about the person.
It's not dumbing down the news content - it's a focus on something other than the issue of the day. There's plenty of "hard" news content - more than at any other time in our lives - from which people can choose.
As to how it affects those in the country who are blessed with not having an obsession with politics, I would think that they are genuinely interested in the Obamas as people. I also think that the vast majority of them like the Obamas as people, in large measure because they can see a bit of themselves in the First Family.
And I think the average American has about had it with the exposure. For a few months it was expected, now, after so long it can end. In fact if it was my family I would want it stopped. Yes, they are the first family, yes, people are curious, but they deserve some privacy. Of course they may be eating it up, who knows and who knows how much is real and how much is fluff?
I personally, don't read the "human interest" pieces on any President but I don't think there is anything wrong with them unless they create a backlash as in, you're shoving them down our throats, when there are too many of them. From a supposed news magazine's perspective, I think it's reaching out to a population that might not ordinarily read their news stories so in their case, it's less political and more of a business decision to sell more newspapers/magazines. That it happens to be people they like is just icing on the cake.
But I don't disagree with Pajamas Media. We know more about the first couple than the President's meetings and adult history as it relates to his politics.
Of course, my guy Rush Limbaugh might say, "This is the chickification of the media."
I think they counter the hideous, ridiculous, and outrageous stories that are being spread by the insane, extreme right. Given both sides of the story, the vast majority of Americans recognize that President Obama and his family are great for our country.
But these kinds of stories are always done.
Sorry, but Michelle's biceps have little to do with the war in Afghanistan. I think your statement makes it pretty clear what's more important to you and what structures your decision making paradigm.
I suspect that we here who support and don't support President Obama's policies are unaffected by People Magazine type stories and photos even in supposedly news magazines so I'm not asking how it affects you, but for your opinion of how it affects the voting public that don't pay a lot of attention to politics.
I was reading this Pajamas Media opinion piece in how the author says he wishes the news magazines would do a little less couples stories and more stories like what Obama did at Harvard and how healthcare legislation was drafted or how it is being negotiated.
In other words, it's less about politics and more about business so if dumbing down news content is what it takes to stay afloat, they'll do it.
If you ask most people, does Tiger Woods advertising Buick's or Michael Jordan or Charlie Sheen advertising Hanes underwear make them more inclined to buy the product, that 98% or greater would say, no of course not.
However, truth is it does work and companies do not spend millions of dollars in celebrity endorsements because they don't work. Marketing is an amazingly sophisticated science.
Today's media is a purely for profit endeavor and unlike previous times, the idea isn't so much to sell products to the reader/viewer, as much as it is to provide a product for corporations and that product is you.
Americans today also look at the office of the President as a celebrity figure and most people equate all that is going right or wrong with the country to just this one person while forgetting all those other people like the Legislative and Judicial Branches. Celebrities sell and the more popular that celebrity is, the more it sells. Whether someone agrees or disagrees with the celebrity matters not, the point is to sell. By any standard, Obama and his family are celebrities and any story with mention of them will sell, matters not the content.
I would give anything to hear mainstream contemporary media talk about anything in a more substantive manner but I'm convinced people do not want substance, they want sound bytes, one liners, and quips they can memorize the next time they sign online. Look around at these discussions and note which ones have the most responses and activity, they are often the very ones devoid of anything other than emotional reactive talking points. Are these type discussions a reflection of the media's influence or is the media merely providing the people what they already want to talk about anyway?
Sorry, but Michelle's biceps have little to do with the war in Afghanistan. I think your statement makes it pretty clear what's more important to you and what structures your decision making paradigm.
The article was about the Obama's Halloween party. Or didn't you read?
And what right do you have making such sweeping, asinine deductions about me?
The article was about the Obama's Halloween party. Or didn't you read?
And what right do you have making such sweeping, asinine deductions about me?
Worry about yourself.
You said "they", not "that story", or "it", in general reference to human interest stories. You then claimed that they somehow balance out the lies spread by whomever (a rather sweeping generalization btw.). My sweeping asinine deductions are based entirely on the sweeping asinine statement you yourself made.
Then you said, "But these kinds of stories are always done.", which I left alone because though it's technically a complete sentence, it's more or less a thought fragment with no relevance to much of anything at all, much like the First Lady's biceps or a Halloween party.
Please register to post and access all features of our very popular forum. It is free and quick. Over $68,000 in prizes has already been given out to active posters on our forum. Additional giveaways are planned.
Detailed information about all U.S. cities, counties, and zip codes on our site: City-data.com.
Please register to participate in our discussions with 2 million other members - it's free and quick! Some forums can only be seen by registered members. After you create your account, you'll be able to customize options and access all our 15,000 new posts/day with fewer ads.
