Is it really so surprising? We live in a society where every local news channel in the nation runs stories like "the new discovery about hair coloring and how it can affect your scalp!"
or
"the Eye Team has uncovered critical information about oat bran...stay tuned to learn more about how it could affect your family's diet."
and then theres
"eyewitness news (what an oxymoron) has uncovered a plot by a local traffic cop who was using handicapped parking stickers to illegally park her car - details at 11."
BRAIN-DEAD, RATINGS-DRIVEN, MEDIA WHORES.
End of story. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
Chicago is horrible for that. They also do this thing where they always have to find the "Chicago Connection" (TM). ****ing 4000 people are crushed and burned and the local news will focus on the quaint effort of the local FD. It's nice but they act like no one will care unless there's a local component. Always finding the "Chicago Connection".
the problem, for CNN at least, is that when you sign up for the CNN breaking news email, you expect GLOBAL coverage and BIG issues because the are BREAKING NEWS... almost heart stopping and need immediate action.
Cancer on Bush's cheek, as Anders pointed out, hardly seems like something the world could care about or at least be really important in the big picture.
<strong>So then what should we be looking at for news reports? You can't really call something bad without having an alternative in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, from a logical standpoint, sure we can. But to answer your question, how about local news without hint of : beauty products, diet tips, shopping tips, stupid verbal jabberings between the anchor and weather person, etc. etc.
And how about national news that instead of trying to cover 12 different topics in the span of 24 minutes or whatever they're alloted. Cover the three or four most pressing ones and give them each 7 or 8 minutes instead of 2 minutes. How about asking some tough questions, and then getting some answers from someone other than their reporter in the field. Or perhaps the complete elimination of viewer polls which are absolutely useless in every sense of the word.
"When asked if they think Mr. Bush has a strong grasp on foreign policy matters in SE Asia, 51% said he did, 40% said he didn't and 9 % were undecided." Yeah, and probably 99% of all of the people asked couldn't NAME three countries IN SE Asia, much less describe the policy issues there. Media morons....
The sad truth is, until the news media relies on some system other than ratings and subsequent advertising fees for income, they will never do their job as they are supposed to.
The News Hour. It may be dull, but it's the only real objective reporting out there, and it's in-depth. They give the three or four major stories of the day a good 10-12 minutes, with viewpoints from both sides (and sometimes three sides) of a given issue. They are the best, hands down.
The sad thing is that for some unknown reason, the media thinks that this is what we want.
I know it's crazy, but they want you to stop on their channel. When I flip around the television with the remote, and I see 'BREAKING NEWS', I stop immediately to see what is going on.
The story about noncancerous moles on Dubya's face getting removed IS NOT: "BREAKING NEWS".
Well, at the heart of the matter is who they claim to be
"serving" with their news broadcasts. And the standard issue answer to that is "the general public" or "average citizen". Nevermind that there is no possible way to discern what that means or who it includes...in the end what it boils down to is they know the average schmuck would rather be dazzled with shiny graphics and statistics (see USA Today), and entertained with video clips and sound bites (see network news, CNN, Fox, etc), than be "forced" to sit and actually pay attention to a five or ten minute interview on an important topic.
The news media has over the years -- I believe -- conditioned us to be mentally lazy. To be spoonfed little bits and pieces of news, that when taken together is rarely relevant or meaningful, but always giving the illusion of being informative. Sort of like people who "satisfy their hunger" with a Snickers bar because "it's packed with peanuts and really satisfies." It's still shit food, and your body still needs the real stuff if it's to be nourished.
Using that analogy, network news is a Snickers bar, local news is bubble gum, and the News Hour is your basic peas and carrots Jenneyh!
Comments
or
"the Eye Team has uncovered critical information about oat bran...stay tuned to learn more about how it could affect your family's diet."
and then theres
"eyewitness news (what an oxymoron) has uncovered a plot by a local traffic cop who was using handicapped parking stickers to illegally park her car - details at 11."
BRAIN-DEAD, RATINGS-DRIVEN, MEDIA WHORES.
End of story. <img src="graemlins/bugeye.gif" border="0" alt="[Skeptical]" />
[ 12-17-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
You can't really call something bad without having an alternative in mind.
Woops, sorry. Wrong forum
Cancer on Bush's cheek, as Anders pointed out, hardly seems like something the world could care about or at least be really important in the big picture.
<strong>So then what should we be looking at for news reports? You can't really call something bad without having an alternative in mind.</strong><hr></blockquote>
Well, from a logical standpoint, sure we can. But to answer your question, how about local news without hint of : beauty products, diet tips, shopping tips, stupid verbal jabberings between the anchor and weather person, etc. etc.
And how about national news that instead of trying to cover 12 different topics in the span of 24 minutes or whatever they're alloted. Cover the three or four most pressing ones and give them each 7 or 8 minutes instead of 2 minutes. How about asking some tough questions, and then getting some answers from someone other than their reporter in the field. Or perhaps the complete elimination of viewer polls which are absolutely useless in every sense of the word.
"When asked if they think Mr. Bush has a strong grasp on foreign policy matters in SE Asia, 51% said he did, 40% said he didn't and 9 % were undecided." Yeah, and probably 99% of all of the people asked couldn't NAME three countries IN SE Asia, much less describe the policy issues there. Media morons....
The sad truth is, until the news media relies on some system other than ratings and subsequent advertising fees for income, they will never do their job as they are supposed to.
The News Hour. It may be dull, but it's the only real objective reporting out there, and it's in-depth. They give the three or four major stories of the day a good 10-12 minutes, with viewpoints from both sides (and sometimes three sides) of a given issue. They are the best, hands down.
[ 12-18-2001: Message edited by: Moogs ? ]</p>
I know it's crazy, but they want you to stop on their channel. When I flip around the television with the remote, and I see 'BREAKING NEWS', I stop immediately to see what is going on.
The story about noncancerous moles on Dubya's face getting removed IS NOT: "BREAKING NEWS".
"serving" with their news broadcasts. And the standard issue answer to that is "the general public" or "average citizen". Nevermind that there is no possible way to discern what that means or who it includes...in the end what it boils down to is they know the average schmuck would rather be dazzled with shiny graphics and statistics (see USA Today), and entertained with video clips and sound bites (see network news, CNN, Fox, etc), than be "forced" to sit and actually pay attention to a five or ten minute interview on an important topic.
The news media has over the years -- I believe -- conditioned us to be mentally lazy. To be spoonfed little bits and pieces of news, that when taken together is rarely relevant or meaningful, but always giving the illusion of being informative. Sort of like people who "satisfy their hunger" with a Snickers bar because "it's packed with peanuts and really satisfies." It's still shit food, and your body still needs the real stuff if it's to be nourished.
Using that analogy, network news is a Snickers bar, local news is bubble gum, and the News Hour is your basic peas and carrots Jenneyh!