C
Cojuanco
Guest
Everyone here knows that by and large most media outlets in the United States promote a set of values at odds with Church teaching. But why?
Now, you may say that journalists are either by self-selection or by editorial policy pressured into such positions. To some extent this is true, as the Gosnell case shows. But it doesn’t explain it entirely. One would expect a somewhat sympathetic point of view towards same-sex marriage, for example. But what we see, of course, is much more than that, with an overwhelming endorsement of the anti-Church position. But why?
Here’s my theory. It has to do with what the modern newspaper and television news program is, since at least the 1950s, certainly since the 1970s.
You see, newspapers and television channels in the United States don’ t really exist to purvey news these days. News coverage is a loss leader, like the products you see in shop windows. It exists to lure you in. So how does the newspaper or the television station make money? Advertising. They want you the reader or viewer to buy from their advertisers, who will give a share of revenue back to them to pay their shareholders.
Now you may ask, why do they take the positions they do? The answer lies in the behavior of demographics. News organizations appeal to demographics who will make them and the advertisers a lot of money.
Take your average practicing Catholic family man or woman, with children. They typically are set in their consumption habits. They’re not likely to be swayed by new brands or products. They’re small-c conservative. Their habits have been set a long time ago. So they can’t make the advertisers much money.
But you know whose habits can be easily swayed, whose consumer preferences are not set in stone? Young people. More precisely, young, unmarried, childless people, typically with a job and just out of university. Their tastes are not set in stone like their parents. And they have a lot of purchasing power and discretionary spending. But what if you could ensure that they keep giving large parts of their paycheck to their advertisers? Simple. Tailor coverage to an already naturally rebellious demographic, with a purpose of keeping them there. Keep them as unmarried as long as possible, keep them as childless as long as possible. Hence their support of things like the HHS mandate and abortion - it keeps them childless which means they consume more, which means the media and their Madison Avenue friends makes more money for longer.
It also makes sense for them to promote gay culture and their slant on the world. We’re largely talking about single men, who until recently could be counted on to stay single, who have thus on average more disposable income to spend. And they can ‘plan’ the coming of children better than their straight neighbors can, so the press barons and Madison Avenue make even more money. So they draw them in with stories in support of gay marriage and whatnot, so they can be persuaded to purchase from their advertisers.
So while the press may self-select for anticlerical positions, the main reason they have such the slant they do is a matter of simple dollars and cents. If it was more profitable to favor traditional marriage and other Catholic teachings, they would in a heartbeat strive to be more Catholic than the Pope.
So what can be done? I don’t claim to have the answer. After all, avarice is as old as the concept of posessions.
Now, you may say that journalists are either by self-selection or by editorial policy pressured into such positions. To some extent this is true, as the Gosnell case shows. But it doesn’t explain it entirely. One would expect a somewhat sympathetic point of view towards same-sex marriage, for example. But what we see, of course, is much more than that, with an overwhelming endorsement of the anti-Church position. But why?
Here’s my theory. It has to do with what the modern newspaper and television news program is, since at least the 1950s, certainly since the 1970s.
You see, newspapers and television channels in the United States don’ t really exist to purvey news these days. News coverage is a loss leader, like the products you see in shop windows. It exists to lure you in. So how does the newspaper or the television station make money? Advertising. They want you the reader or viewer to buy from their advertisers, who will give a share of revenue back to them to pay their shareholders.
Now you may ask, why do they take the positions they do? The answer lies in the behavior of demographics. News organizations appeal to demographics who will make them and the advertisers a lot of money.
Take your average practicing Catholic family man or woman, with children. They typically are set in their consumption habits. They’re not likely to be swayed by new brands or products. They’re small-c conservative. Their habits have been set a long time ago. So they can’t make the advertisers much money.
But you know whose habits can be easily swayed, whose consumer preferences are not set in stone? Young people. More precisely, young, unmarried, childless people, typically with a job and just out of university. Their tastes are not set in stone like their parents. And they have a lot of purchasing power and discretionary spending. But what if you could ensure that they keep giving large parts of their paycheck to their advertisers? Simple. Tailor coverage to an already naturally rebellious demographic, with a purpose of keeping them there. Keep them as unmarried as long as possible, keep them as childless as long as possible. Hence their support of things like the HHS mandate and abortion - it keeps them childless which means they consume more, which means the media and their Madison Avenue friends makes more money for longer.
It also makes sense for them to promote gay culture and their slant on the world. We’re largely talking about single men, who until recently could be counted on to stay single, who have thus on average more disposable income to spend. And they can ‘plan’ the coming of children better than their straight neighbors can, so the press barons and Madison Avenue make even more money. So they draw them in with stories in support of gay marriage and whatnot, so they can be persuaded to purchase from their advertisers.
So while the press may self-select for anticlerical positions, the main reason they have such the slant they do is a matter of simple dollars and cents. If it was more profitable to favor traditional marriage and other Catholic teachings, they would in a heartbeat strive to be more Catholic than the Pope.
So what can be done? I don’t claim to have the answer. After all, avarice is as old as the concept of posessions.
