It's not as incoherent as you think. Isn't this a bit too cynical? I'd ascribe the disinterest of the media to its complexity and geopolitical nature. Sidenote: for a second I really thought you meant this Eurofighter:But nobody talks about that. Because it's the New World Order pursuing humanitarian goals. You can't paint it red or blue so people cover their ears and go la la la.
Honestly? I think the world was different in the era of the Fairness Doctrine. Back then, as part of having a license to use public spectrum, you had to present equal bias on public issues in such a way that the public ended up informed. If you didn't, you didn't get to have a radio or television station. But that shit was repealed in 1987, which paved the way for demagoguery. Whitewater is probably a bit before your time, but the TL;DR of it is right-wing lobbyists dominated the news cycle with the story that the Clintons were corrupt because they lost money on real estate 20 years previously in a land deal with someone they hadn't talked to since and whom had long since been to prison. But it went so fucking crazy that any given Republican you met was convinced that Bill and Hillary had Vince Foster murdered because he was going to leak something about secret drug planes full of hookers to the press. The Fairness Doctrine required that news be free of titillation and slander. The end of the Fairness Doctrine made the news require titillation and slander. Then the Internet came along and the competition for eyes and ears is so great that if you're not lobbing some gonzo assertion at the wall to see what sticks, you're writing in a void. People talk about how divided the country is these days. A lot of that is we're no longer living in the same media realities. If you don't watch Fox News you don't really know what Benghazi is, let alone why it means Hillary Clinton belongs to the Secret Order of Lizard People. And if you don't watch MSNBC, Occupy Wall Street was unemployed hippies who wanted an increase in their welfare checks. I can only have an American perspective, but my American perspective is that we've got hella more bias now than we did 30,20,10 years ago. And that the British press has been worse than the American press since the days of Pulitzer. Veen: subscribed to /r/rollercoasters. kleinbl00: subscribed to /r/credibledefense. There's a sitcom in there somewhere.Isn't this a bit too cynical? I'd ascribe the disinterest of the media to its complexity and geopolitical nature.
Sidenote: for a second I really thought you meant this Eurofighter:
When it comes to American media, yes, it's become much more biased. Still, I'd argue that the media's lack of thorough coverage can be ascribed more to 'we can't find a good angle on this' than 'this doesn't fit our dualistic news coverage'. I think I've been greatly spoiled here. Television news here is dominated by one public broadcasting news show and one commercial news show. The former is legally bound to provide impartial and complete news, and the latter's worst sin is pretending feelgood-stories like this one is actual news. The only newspaper I read regularly is critically acclaimed as one of the best of Europe. And De Correspondent. Which, by the way, will start releasing articles in English soon. Two and a Half Men of Steel perhaps?There's a sitcom in there somewhere.