Given a choice of covering North Korea's threats to nuke the world, or Michael Jackson's death, most news organizations chose the latter. Does this worry you?
by 
Anonymous
ANSWERS: 12
-
Not really. It just means that no one is taking North Korea seriously, and there is no reason that anyone should. The USA alone, has enough nuclear firepower to make Pyongyang resemble the lunar surface, if we want to do that. +5
-
Nope. I don't care tbh. If we all die, we all die. We'll join MJ >_<
-
MJs life was a media circus. It's not surprising that his death and funeral will be a media circus too.
-
It never ceases to amaze me to see what the media deems worthy of reporting on. I gave up watching the news and reading newspapers long ago.
-
When it comes down to it, today's news is more about eyeballs to advertisers. And no one really cares about the nukes because they're under the assumption that someone's bound to take care of that pesky Kim Jong il problem. America's an image based society that's heavy into idol worship (consider the name of one of our most popular shows). I'm more irritated and annoyed than troubled.
-
Pathetic, but hardly surprising yo...
-
Since Korea hasn't had much success with their nuking program - not really. But I simply don't understand the Jackson hysteria. +5
-
North Korea makes threats all the time. Michael Jackson only dies once.
-
It doesn't worry me. It just proves that news organizations are out to make a buck, not report the news.
-
No, I trust the media's reporting on something they understand, such as the death of Jackson, much more than on an important story involving world events. The media is unlikely to lead the masses to ill concieved opinions that influence national policy while covering a pop star's death. Come to think of it, the world would probably be a better place if an aging "has been" celebrity died every week. It would keep the media occupied.
-
No,it sound right.
MrJosh 
beaker95 RELATED QUESTIONS
Copyright 2023, Wired Ivy, LLC