4 ms·

> but they are not being reported A consequence of > public protests almost any day of the week surely?

DanAndersen 11y ago
Perhaps this is a sign of the irrelevance of most media. I've felt for a while that following the news isn't a very good use of one's time, because the news, by definition, tends to focus on what is new or unusual, suggesting that it is in fact not the norm or what is generally going on.
learnstats2 11y ago
The parent commenter claimed they are not aware of much public activism, despite apparently being interested. And yet a quarter of a million protested just 10 days ago; although it is difficult to find details in traditional news sources: http://www.cityam.com/218417/end-austerity-now-protest-gathers-london-hundreds-thousands-protest-against-austerity http://www.cityam.com/218417/end-austerity-now-protest-gathe... Given this is happening, people are interested, and people don't know about it, don't you think this would be an ideal subject for the news to report on?
- seanp2k2 11y ago
  Not when all the news is just "content" to try to get you to look at ads. What company wants their product spots running during reports on something intent on upsetting their economic power? News does not exist to report the truth anymore.
coldtea 11y ago
Surely not. News != novelty value. Whatever happens should be reported. Besides, all the other tedious stuff that also happens every day of the week, does get reported, including stuff about the Royal family's everyday life and what have you.
- laumars 11y ago
  The Royal family's everyday activities isn't actually reported in the national news. Exceptional stuff like babies or scandals are, but they're exceptional. Regional news will broadcast the royals if they visit the region, but again that's exceptional rather than the norm. News is, by it's very definition, new and noteworthy information. And given the short attention span of the modern generation, it's all the more relevant that the news stays new and noteworthy rather than old and repetitive. So in many ways, "news" does equal "novelty value".

Perhaps this is a sign of the irrelevance of most media. I've felt for a while that following the news isn't a very good use of one's time, because the news, by definition, tends to focus on what is new or unusual, suggesting that it is in fact not the norm or what is generally going on.

learnstats2 11y ago

The parent commenter claimed they are not aware of much public activism, despite apparently being interested. And yet a quarter of a million protested just 10 days ago; although it is difficult to find details in traditional news sources: http://www.cityam.com/218417/end-austerity-now-protest-gathers-london-hundreds-thousands-protest-against-austerity http://www.cityam.com/218417/end-austerity-now-protest-gathe... Given this is happening, people are interested, and people don't know about it, don't you think this would be an ideal subject for the news to report on?

seanp2k2 11y ago
Not when all the news is just "content" to try to get you to look at ads. What company wants their product spots running during reports on something intent on upsetting their economic power? News does not exist to report the truth anymore.

coldtea 11y ago

Surely not. News != novelty value. Whatever happens should be reported. Besides, all the other tedious stuff that also happens every day of the week, does get reported, including stuff about the Royal family's everyday life and what have you.

laumars 11y ago
The Royal family's everyday activities isn't actually reported in the national news. Exceptional stuff like babies or scandals are, but they're exceptional. Regional news will broadcast the royals if they visit the region, but again that's exceptional rather than the norm. News is, by it's very definition, new and noteworthy information. And given the short attention span of the modern generation, it's all the more relevant that the news stays new and noteworthy rather than old and repetitive. So in many ways, "news" does equal "novelty value".