About
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.Subscribe
This site is a little project that lets me make fun of some things and sense of others. I use it to think a little more relationally without resorting to doing actual math.
Does that mean the less attention you get the more trouble you cause, or the more trouble you cause the less attention you get, or both ?
I’d say both.
As long as it isn’t “Fair and Balanced”
This is true for kids too. And if you don’t give them some decent attention they’ll find a way to get any attention–especially the bad kind.
This applies to relationships as well and often, as in my case, results in catastrophe.
Of course if its CNN (Communist News Network), then the line starts at the origin and goes up at a 45 degree angle.
The biased media will be the death of real and responsible freedom.
Title should be “why responsible journalism matters.” Otherwise you end up with Faux News.
There’s a corollary with a directly proportional relationship titled, “What’s Wrong with Journalism.” There is little accountability for errors when the goal is to attract momentary attention and corrections are buried and seldom seen.
From a non-journalistic perspective, I’d say this should be a parabola.
There’s a lot of trouble to be caused for not paying attention. While at the same time if you pay close attention to things, you know exactly what to do in order to cause a lot of trouble.
The graph clearly works for the objects of journalism — if the media is paying attention to your every move, you’re less likely to engage in troublesome behavior. Though I suppose ‘troublesome’ is a reflection of the values of the beholder.
The curve should be perpendicular for the journalism source itself. Specifically, the more attention a journalism source gets, the more trouble it causes. (Of course, this seems to be a recent development – within the last decade or so – due to a hyper-partisan political atmosphere, as evidenced in the comments here.)
this is true for how much attention the journalists are paying. But if it is referring to how much attention the public pays to the journalist the inverse is true. the more trouble they cause the attention they get.
Here’s my take on it inspired by your graphical representation: http://www.mansibhatia.com/2010/05/journalism/
Of course the inverse is true, in that the less important or troubled a cause, the more attention it receives. See Paris Hilton, Lindsay Lohan, and more