August 2009 Archives
Even though I have been supporting the better qualities of the news, I still understand the Hocus Pocus tricks of TV broadcasting.
This is just like in the movies when a story is exagerated for viewing plessure: A news broadcaster will always spruce up the story to gain viewers attention. I understand the importance of giving the news to viewers as urgently is possible but in my opinion, let us decide what is most important for ourselves. If every breaking news was treated the same way, with the same urgency, then viewers could pick out for themselves what they think is more important or what they should worry about because it would suit them. Rather then doing things that way, news broadcasters want viewers to see what they see as most important; which usually means whatever story they can continue to run for a few hours, or even a few days.
Personally, I could use some more "good" news. I always fear turning on the news and seeing all of the headlines being "murder," "rape," shootings." I know these things happen more then they should and it is certainly important to have knowledge of it but I love when I see some friendly/happy news.
As for things really being as bad as we are lead to believe; well, I know broadcasters liven up stories to catch our attention but the fact is that we do need our attention to be caught because we really could be missing out on an important story if it weren't for the determined news crew.
In the video from The Onion: Something Is Happening in Haiti, it is confusing, irritating, and annoying among many other thoughts. I was frustrated to watch the video and to think that this kind of news broadcasting actually happens.
When I think of breaking news, I automatically know that I will not get all of the facts. Chances are that it will take weeks or months before all of the details come out. But that is breaking news. This is meant for broadcasters to relay the message that something big is happening right now. Of course they are not going to have the facts right then especially if the big event if still happening but viewers want to know that information so in general people are satisfied with knowing anything.
September 11th for example took months possibly even years before anyone knew all of the stories and inofrmation that could confirm the actual facts of the event. It would be impossible to gain all of that information so it is the job of the news to look at the context clues and by their best judgement, come up with some answers for the viewers. The answer may change as time goes on but the event may also change so that is to be expected. Breaking news is meant to get the news out right away, facts or no facts, it is the job of the news to inform their viewers with what is going on in the world.
I watched the 6 o'clock news and for the most part, I was impressed with the amount of news that was shown. The fire in California to Teddy Kennedy dying. It was a big day for news so perhaps that helped the reporters and broadcasters.
Normally, I would think (from mostly the word-of-mouth by other people) that the news is full of headlines but no stories and commercials every minute. However, when I am truly watching and paying close attention to the news, I end up getting everything I want out of yet. They have to headline the important things to keep people's attention for the entire program and I can understand that.
There are plenty of times when the stories on the news are "old" news or not newsworthy at all but just filler stories. But this evening's news happened to be important and worthy of many headlines and many stories following.
Looking at that comic did make me laugh because it is something that would be on a skit from "Saturday Night Live." That being said, when people are poking fun at situations like that, blowing it out of proportion can be an issue.
I agree that in some instances news reporters are just looking for a story and a reason to point the camera somewhere. I do not agree that this happens all the time because generally the reporters are pointing the camera's to a place of significance to the story.
I did not expect to feel that way when reading the comic but for some reason it bothered me that it was assuming all news reporters act in that manner. After all, reporters do not get to a scene until the situation is over; so, for the viewers sake they will show what they can to give us the satisfaction. I don't see anything wrong with that. I want to be informed and enjoy when the reporters actually CAN get to one of those places; even if the occurance is already over.
As for when the reporter supposedly looked at Wikipedia to tell the viewers if the famous person was good and what they did, I have never seen that happen. The reporters quote other famous people and other people who knew them to get the information. I just don't see the issue with this situation. News reporters are "reporting." That is what they do and they do it to the best of their abbility.