[ALawPoker]

[ QUOTE ]
Maybe we need to consider just how very cheap this sort of news is to produce - almost zero research from dumb journalists and pseudo-experts, and so simple that its easy to present. I wonder how different it would be if all news cost the same to produce (I fear not much).

[/ QUOTE ]

I don't think there would be any significant difference. I don't know much about the costs of operating a cable news channel, but I would think the cost of producing one set of news vs. a different set of news is almost always negligible when you consider the value of offering the better story. There are a lot of costs that the station will have anyways. Advertising, salaries, equipment. So since a lot of the cost is static, the cost of actually producing the news does not comprise the full range of expenses; however the quality of your product does comprise the full range of your revenue. So it probably would never make sense for a profitable channel to be swayed by the cost difference of two stories unless all else was damn near equal. It'd be like signing an all-star outfielder, but putting the team up in uncomfortable hotels to save money.

So I think the real question is why do people desire this sort of news? It's almost like why Paris Hilton became a super celebrity. She is because she is!

I always found it interesting that I could be at a baseball game, thinking my team is 6 games ahead of the 2nd place team. We could be in a tight game, and I'm emotionally invested in every pitch. Someone scores to tie the game in the 7th, and that's like the worst thing ever to me. Then I could look at the newspaper again and realize that our lead is actually only 5 games, and it'll just be like "oh, oh well.... STRIKE 3! YES!!!" But shouldn't anything (short of injuries and the ilk) that I observe happening in that game not possibly be as objectively bad as realizing we're a whole game worse than I thought? So I dunno. We are social creatures. It's pretty easy to ascribe value subjectively when you empathize with someone else. Since the main challenge of our environment is simply our social interactions with each other, it seems good (and so it must be natural) to interpret someone else's moods and interests as worthwhile in their own rights.

Stories like this are a good thing anyways. I'd rather see two idiots talk about something that is actually stupid than about something that is important but that they reduce to stupid.