IS DUMBING DOWN GOOD OR BAD?

Is the news we are provided not prioritized properly? 

This is a debate that has not ended up with any conclusions so far. What decides or rather who decides what the general public should know and what the general public need not know?

On Sunday, following the Pantaloons Femina Miss India contest that had taken place in Mumbai on Saturday night, the Times of India carried a news report filling almost half a page in the main paper about the event.

Right below the report of the Miss India event was a small 3 column report of a very tragic incident - a small boy of about 9 years of age was beaten up brutally by police officers. His crime was that he had stolen 500 rupees. He stole the money to get to his grandmother after his mother had abandoned him while he was asleep.

The boy was roughed up so much that his face was extremely bruised, his arm was broken, and he almost crawled into court holding his stomach in pain. The judge has called for strict action against the policemen and has asked for medical treatment to be given to the boy immediately.

Reality programme bytes, who is dating whom, who is getting married, who has celebrated his 60^th -70^th birthday, etc is telecasted by news channels. Who is interested in such stories? And if there are some people interested, then for such news we do have entertainment channels. The question is why news channels broadcasting theses stories? Why are they dumbing down hardcore news of greater importance?

There is a diminishing appetite for serious news.

Tell me... what is more important for the general public to know? 

We are all aware that the size and positioning of a story speaks volumes about the importance the newspaper gives it.

Is it more important for people to know in detail what happened at a glamorous event, or is it more important for them to be made aware of such dehumanizing acts vetted out to poor kids?

It appears as if newspapers and broadcast channels today are prioritizing glam and celebrity gossip over things that are of more importance to the lay man. 

It is however, a vicious cycle.

We cannot blame newspapers or broadcast news channels alone.

They run on money. They need their revenue and so they cater to what their audience wants to see.

Is it not true that a majority of the people look forward to the glam-quotient of their news than its relevance? 

So who's to blame?

Is it the public because what we want is what we see? Or the channels or the newspapers?

The debate continues....