Is the media lagging behind when it comes to reporting social change?

They don’t lead the change, they report it.

Their delayed response is purposeful, in my opinion. I also believe that our media’s goals are to obscure real topics, to disseminate panics and perpetuate certain agendas.

@marinelife Yeah, that makes sense.

If three kids at a high school in Brooklyn wear their pants rolled up funny, is that a trend, or is it kids being goofy? What if a third of the school did it? Or all the high school kids in Brooklyn and Queens? At what time is it a real change?

The media can’t report the avant garde, because they are not able to discern if a movement is new, or if it is just a blip on the social radar somewhere.

Happens all the time. It’s always the same formula. When you have kids, there is always some stupid trend thing that every kid needs to have. A couple of years ago, it was “silly bands” (elastics in different shapes worn as bracelets). They became a huge problem in schools, and teachers were banning them from the classroom because kids were trading them and there were claims of theft, etc. Three months after the trend had completely died and everyone threw their silly bands away, the local news station did a breaking report about these “new” things that were catching on with the kids.

I agree with @Simone_De_Beauvoir I think they recognize certain things, and in an attempt to use their influence, do not report it. But when the public shouts it out, they are forced to comply and then jump on the band wagon b/c there isn’t another option.

Kinda when like Ron Paul was getting great ratings earlier in the year and the media just skipped over him. Then lots of people shouted “Uh wait a minute, what up with Ron Paul” And the media had to backtrack and cover him more.

Media organizations are primarily concerned with delivering an audience to the advertisers or sponsors of the particular medium in question (newspaper, flyer, radio or television broadcast to name the most obvious media).