Quote Originally Posted by Ken White
....there is no media conspiracy but the practitioners therein do tend to think alike (and I use the word think rather loosely...) and ignore a lot of things they either do not understand or that are inimical to their collective worldview.

The problem is not conspiracy -- it's ignorance. They're mostly pretty incompetent.
What I feel is missing from this statement is consideration of plain ol' marketing factors. The media is a for-profit industry and they produce what they perceive people want. Being as their bottom-line rides on what people watch, read or listen to, they do pay a lot of attention to these things and monitor it continuously - like Wal-Mart monitors what's flowing off of its shelves in order to structure its purchase orders. So, when we toss out the "ignorance" label, we have to apply it just broadly to the consumer - the American people.

The consumer as the driver for media has become even more critical to the industry these days, as traditional media is challenged by the 'net and all that goes along with it. Some are doing well, many are struggling, and not a few have already died. You cannot underestimate the influence of the consumer on how and what news is produced, IMHO.

The old cliche If it bleeds it leads is a truism - people in general are simply more drawn to the vicarious thrills of negative news than they are to positive news. Look to the content of television programming and the various show ratings for an example of how much people enjoy seeing others' misery.

Couple the above with the general ignorance and apathy of mainstream America for what occurs outside our borders, and you have the resulting pathetic excuse for media reporting that exists in this country. Unless there is a substantive change in the general public's news consumption habits, there will be no positive change in the reporting (positive, in this case, according to the perceptions of those posting in this thread). Blaming "the media", only goes so far.