# Elitist Media: Thank you for ignoring the non-affluent, i.e., nobody you know **URL:** \ **Category:** The BBQ Pit\ **Created:** [November 6, 2003, 1:02pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691 "2003-11-06T13:02:10Z")\ **Posts on this page:** 8\ **Page:** 2
**Author:** ![nisosbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@nisosbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nisosbar)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 9:54pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/21 "2003-11-08T21:54:11Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by OxyMoron \* > \*\*If you’re trying to polish your Christian virtues, I’d suggest that ignorance and sanctimony aren’t a good start. There is a reason that _envy_ is one of the seven deadly sins, where _wealth_ (in the absence of avarice) is not. \*\* Ouch. (pronounced like “pouch”.) ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 10:13pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/22 "2003-11-08T22:13:11Z")
So it just hit you now, while reading the gay adoption article, that the poor are regarded as subhuman trogs? Glad your paying attention. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 10:14pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/23 "2003-11-08T22:14:54Z")
Glad **you’re** paying attention. Ohh, tha’s betta. ---
**Author:** ![nisosbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@nisosbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nisosbar)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 10:45pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/24 "2003-11-08T22:45:40Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by 'possum stalker \* > \*\*So it just hit you now, while reading the gay adoption article, that the poor are regarded as subhuman trogs? > > Glad your paying attention. \*\* Yeah, right? Where have I been? 😃 Actually, no, I’ve noticed that bias before, but for whatever reason - getting older and wiser (hopefully), natural evolutionary changes in the press corps, the ascendency of Coulter-style conservatives in the mass media, any number of other things - I haven’t found so many such **obvious** examples of media bias until just recently. There was a time when, even if the “rich and famous” bias was always there, in other ways the press at least **seemed** like it was **trying** to be objective, and searching for the truth. However, anecdotally to me, it seems as though that bias has just become more pronounced in the last few years to the detriment of objectivity. What with how the Society of Professional Journalists changed their code of ethics in 1996 to delete any reference to “objectivity” and changed their reference from “_the_ truth” to simply “truth” (italics mine), this diminishment of journalistic standards/ethics should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention (obviously, not me) to what’s going on in the journalistic world. Also, recognize that the press generally wants more than anything access to the world’s movers and shakers, even if The Truth is compromised in the process. Is this the way it should be? Who knows, maybe, maybe not. Certainly, people who want to be well-informed must stay on their toes and inform themselves about sources whose reporting has, over time, proven to merit a certain amount of gravity. Which is why the media has an interest not just in making money but maintaining credibility. ---
**Author:** ![\_possum\_stalker](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/_/b77776/32.png) [@\_possum\_stalker](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/_possum_stalker)\ **Post date:** [November 8, 2003, 10:55pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/25 "2003-11-08T22:55:14Z")
I agree, **Niso** , it’s getting worse. But companies no longer have much motivation to plan for the future more than a few quarters ahead, so the media sees no point in shoring up their actual journalist cred. (Witnessing corner: Kevin Phillip’s _Wealth and Democracy_ explains all! Read it! now, dammit! The library is still open!) ---
**Author:** ![elmwood](https://sea3.discourse-cdn.com/straightdope/user_avatar/boards.straightdope.com/elmwood/32/3060_2.png) [@elmwood](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/elmwood)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 5:55am UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/26 "2003-11-09T05:55:32Z")
I think most local magazines tend to aim for the upper-upper middle class readership. Back home, there’s a thick monthly publication called _Buffalo Spree_. Reviews of restaurants where meals are $100 or more, lots of news about the Buffalo Philharmonic and Junior League, “Top 20 Young Executives”-type lists, ads for Jaguar dealerships and Sub-Zero refrigerators, and so on. Remember, this is Buffalo, a city where normally JC Penny and Ramada Inn are thought of as upscale, and the most popular restaurants boast about their Friday fish fry and “20 large screen televisions.” ---
**Author:** ![MsRobyn](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/m/90ced4/32.png) [@MsRobyn](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/MsRobyn)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 7:52pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/27 "2003-11-09T19:52:27Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by nisosbar \* > \*\*Yeah, right? Where have I been? 😃 > > Actually, no, I’ve noticed that bias before, but for whatever reason - getting older and wiser (hopefully), natural evolutionary changes in the press corps, the ascendency of Coulter-style conservatives in the mass media, any number of other things - I haven’t found so many such **obvious** examples of media bias until just recently. > > There was a time when, even if the “rich and famous” bias was always there, in other ways the press at least **seemed** like it was **trying** to be objective, and searching for the truth. However, anecdotally to me, it seems as though that bias has just become more pronounced in the last few years to the detriment of objectivity. > > What with how the Society of Professional Journalists changed their code of ethics in 1996 to delete any reference to “objectivity” and changed their reference from “_the_ truth” to simply “truth” (italics mine), this diminishment of journalistic standards/ethics should come as no surprise to anyone who’s been paying attention (obviously, not me) to what’s going on in the journalistic world. > > Also, recognize that the press generally wants more than anything access to the world’s movers and shakers, even if The Truth is compromised in the process. Is this the way it should be? Who knows, maybe, maybe not. > > Certainly, people who want to be well-informed must stay on their toes and inform themselves about sources whose reporting has, over time, proven to merit a certain amount of gravity. Which is why the media has an interest not just in making money but maintaining credibility. \*\* First of all, magazine publishing is a vastly different world from newspaper publishing. Magazines like _New York_ exist not to provide news or deep social commentary (which is left to other publications), but to offer New Yorkers and people interested in New York a glimpse of a certain lifestyle in New York City. The readership _New York_ wants to serve is upper-middle-class with some disposable income who is interested in finding out about things like arts and entertainment, where to find the coolest clothes, what other people are reading and watching, and what certain celebrities are doing with themselves these days. As others have pointed out, many cities have similar magazines. People like to fantasize what it’s like to live a few notches above what they really do. These magazines feed the fantasies. All that said, magazines are specifically out to promote a viewpoint. _New York_’s is to promote an affluent lifestyle to its readership. It has no special responsibility to promote “objectivity” or viewpoints it doesn’t agree with. If you’re that concerned about GLBT issues, read _The Advocate_ or NYC’s GLBT paper. That’s what those publications are for. Robin ---
**Author:** ![nisosbar](https://avatars.discourse-cdn.com/v4/letter/n/c37758/32.png) [@nisosbar](https://boards.straightdope.com/u/nisosbar)\ **Post date:** [November 9, 2003, 8:18pm UTC](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691/28 "2003-11-09T20:18:45Z")
> [@](#): > > \*Originally posted by MsRobyn \* > \*\*First of all, magazine publishing is a vastly different world from newspaper publishing. Magazines like _New York_ exist not to provide news or deep social commentary (which is left to other publications), but to offer New Yorkers and people interested in New York a glimpse of a certain lifestyle in New York City. The readership _New York_ wants to serve is upper-middle-class with some disposable income who is interested in finding out about things like arts and entertainment, where to find the coolest clothes, what other people are reading and watching, and what certain celebrities are doing with themselves these days. As others have pointed out, many cities have similar magazines. People like to fantasize what it’s like to live a few notches above what they really do. These magazines feed the fantasies. > > All that said, magazines are specifically out to promote a viewpoint. _New York_’s is to promote an affluent lifestyle to its readership. It has no special responsibility to promote “objectivity” or viewpoints it doesn’t agree with. If you’re that concerned about GLBT issues, read _The Advocate_ or NYC’s GLBT paper. That’s what those publications are for. > > Robin \*\* Robin, you’ve got it exactly right here, I feel, and thanks for your response. From there, I would launch into a side discussion about “objectivity,” but that’s another thread, I suppose. [Previous page](https://boards.straightdope.com/t/elitist-media-thank-you-for-ignoring-the-non-affluent-i-e-nobody-you-know/211691.md?page=1)