lazy day, and some thanks.

[jlh]

Christmas weekend thanks for Friday, Saturday, Sunday, Monday.

I could write a reply to all the bitching about TV news but I've done it so many times before I feel like a broken record. They say it's a sign of insanity to keep doing the same thing and expect a different outcome, so I'm going to step back from the brink. All of you who think that TV news is going to bring you objective coverage that appropriately weights time spent to the relative importance of the story might want to think about that as well.

Meanwhile, I'm watching some daytime trash television before I hop into the shower and then go shopping. Ah, Springer. Though what I really love are the ads for ambulance chasers and ITT Technical Institute.

Comments

[aome.livejournal.com]

Er - it's wrong to wish that American TV would grant more time to disasters in other parts of the world?

[jlh.livejournal.com]

It isn't that it's wrong to wish it but that it's futile to expect it. The economics and internal ideas of TV news don't allow for it. Nor does the audience; the people who want that kind of coverage have long since left TV news behind for NPR, the Economist, the internet, the newspaper. I would also say that in the early days of the disaster there simply weren't any pictures.

I think TV news is pretty horrible and I never watch it if I don't have to. Like the rest of TV, it needs to appeal to the widest audience possible, and now that there is so much competition in TV news there really is no reason to do extensive coverage of international events (which is incredibly expensive and audiences don't really watch) instead of "news you can use" (which is cheap and popular). Back in the day the major networks could afford to run their news divisions at a loss, but no longer. My major news source is National Public Radio, which I supplement with the New York Times and sometimes bbc.com and the Globe and Mail.

But this is reeling off my same response to this same complaint that I said the last time. I just find it odd when people go a place that won't give them what they want and are annoyed, instead of just going to a place that offers what they seek. What surprises me most, I must admit, is that you are looking for more coverage, when often during a period when every outlet is focussed on one story you post with your fatigue with the story. Isn't that what you're asking for here?

[aome.livejournal.com]

It wasn't that I specifically am looking for more information: what I was trying to state in my post is that it's ... demeaning to the disaster to allot them two minutes. C'mon, they deserve more national attention than that! I am not asking them to give it constant coverage, as that's too far in the other extreme, and yes, that irks me, as that then pretends that there isn't any OTHER news in the world. There should be balance.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Well, I'm assuming that you were watching a half hour or hour long programme, which gives them 22 or 45 minutes of actual show. In that instance, 2 minutes is a lot, really. It was the lead story. They are telling you, this happened. And in early days, they don't know a ton more than that.

But also, TV news, not the place to seek balance. It's an on or off situation. Cover it like any other lead story, or do the wall to wall. The only in between is if you have more than one angle on a story; then you might get 6 minutes out of it. They are trying to tell you everything you might need to know in a half hour or an hour. Just making the broadcast--being the lead story--is a big signifier, believe me.

[aome.livejournal.com]

Cover it like any other lead story, or do the wall to wall.

Why, though? Why does it have to be 2 minutes or 60 and no in-between? I find it hard to believe that stories either have so little or so much to report. Actually, that's usually what bothers me about the wall to wall coverage - they don't have anything new to say, so they just keep repeating themselves ad nauseum, or say "There's nothing new to report". Well, then, cut to some other news and come back when there is something new to report.

I know - I'm not in the media and you are, and thus I 'don't know what I'm talking about'. But, as a consumer, I really don't get why it's all or nothing and there's never any room in the middle. I really don't.

[jlh.livejournal.com]

Well, I'll talk about wall to wall coverage first.

Cable news is not programmed for people who are actively watching it all day. It's got so much viewer churn that they have to program for people coming in and out. That's why they have an update at the top and bottom of every hour. When they do extended coverage, what they are really doing is providing coverage for people who have "just tuned in" no matter when that is. Also, when you are talking about a developing news story, you never know when something might happen. Deciding to go to something else and then breaking in on that with new news is really disruptive and they hate to do that, so they tend to grab the air and hold on to it with all their might.

(The reason they have crap all over the screen is that during the day cable news is mostly watched by people in their offices with the sound off.)

However, when you have a regular newscast, they have to "cover the world in 22 minutes" or whatever they're doing. So in order to get to all the stories that they feel deserve your attention, they really can't give too much time to any one story. 6 minutes of coverage on the flood means two stories that won't make the news at all. These are as much for that in-and-out churning audience as the wall to wall coverage is.

Again, I think that you're frustrated because what you want is news for long attention spans and television simply cannot program for long attention spans; television viewers don't have a long attention span. Now, public television and radio, which don't have these sort of economic imperatives, may be more to your liking. Jim Lehrer's show has a short news update followed by 2-3 longer feature stories about one of the big news events, then often a discussion segment and something artsy or lighter at the end (think "back of the book" in Time Magazine). Public radio is similar in that they have the time and the flexibility to stretch out and change their show around, because people are listening longer. Granted, there are no pictures, but I have found that with these very sensational stories (like the Tsunami) I don't really need the pictures to understand the devastation, and if I want them, there are photos all over the web. I've really moved away from thinking of current events in terms of video.

I guess that's the larger thing I was trying to say in the initial post: Instead of looking for what you want where it simply isn't going to be and feeling frustrated, change to something that is going to give you what you want. From what you say, CNN just ain't it.

[aome.livejournal.com]

Actually, we don't get CNN at our house; all I have is the network news. But thanks for giving a more thorough explanation. It was frustrating to feel criticized when I don't have the same knowledge base you do. If what I say isn't correct or suitable - fine, educate me. Criticism by itself just puts someone on the defensive.