Broadcast Journalism: Nagging Out of Necessity
I really think that broadcast journalism has been the brunt of a lot of unessecary criticism as of late. Yes, it is true that much of what is reported is blown out of proportion or is, at times, not even newsworthy. But, what about huge events like the September 11th attacks? If people could not get news on their television, how would they know- almost up to the minute- what was going on around them? Arguably, one could just log on to the web and get the latest, breaking news, but the fact is that we live in an age in which NOT EVERYONE has or even knows how to use the internet! Yes, news anchors try as hard as they can to keep their viewers tuned in and coming back for more, but I do not think that is such a bad thing. Sure, they are prompted to do so by the network in order to boost ratings, but as long as they can develop some sort of following, then that following will always be informed. No matter if the biggest story of the day is the "discovery" that red wine has certain health benefits OR if our nation is under attack. I kind of wish that people would back off a bit because honestly when broadcast journalists have to report the news SEVERAL times EVERY day there are bound to be repeated stories and some slow times. The POINT is that when something DOES happen that the broadcast journalists WILL know about it and WILL keep the public informed. Until then, sit back and be GLAD that the saddest/most tragic/hardest-hitting piece of news in the world at that time is chocolate-covered bacon because it WILL NOT stay that way for long.