"Fill the unforgiving minute with sixty seconds worth of distance run."
- Rudyard Kipling (1865-1936)
How much does watching todays news seem like a waste of time? At the conclusion of the program you have very little idea what happened in Washington or Richmond that day about things that affect the entire nation. You will know about what people think about long Black Friday lines, and holiday highway travel.
I watched a Russian news service the other night. It was about 45 minutes long, with no commercials. There was one anchor, and he read most of the stories (in English) in a calm voice. There was no fluff, no celebrity goofs, no joking about the topics between anchors. As I watched I couldn’t tell how he felt about what he was reporting one way or another. He just did his job and reported the news. Although it sounds boring it was quite addictive. As you absorbed what he was saying you formed your own opinion about it. Very refreshing.
I remember the news being like that early in my life. After dinner dad would sit and watch the news. We kids would be shushed and knew to play quietly or sit quietly until it was over. There were no flashy graphics or catchy banter between stories. The anchor delivered the news, be it Cronkite or one of the other newsmen of the time. I say newsmen because there were no women at the anchor level back then.
Even though there must have been shootings, muggings and terrible house fires at the time, you saw almost none of this. It was all national or local news that concerned a large portion of the populace. In talking to my elders they all say they knew more about what their elected officials did back then voting wise then they could ever hope to now. People actually watched, they wanted to learn what was happening in the world.
These days we would think this kind of news delivery would be boring, and advertisers and TV executives know it. Since news divisions have been subjugated to the entertainment department in most cases what gets into your local news is almost exclusively for shock value. That or a human-interest story designed to tug at those old heartstrings. Back when news was news that kind of thing would have been on Merv Griffith or the predecessor to Oprah. News executives want to keep you hooked throughout the program by dropping teasers of something yet to come after this commercial break. You might notice the weather report is never at the front of the news program.
In today’s world most people go to more then one source to get their news. I think that is a tribute to how bad news reporting has gotten in the last few decades. If you get the channel try watching the BBC one night. It is a great deal different then anything you might see on an American network. It covers mostly national or international topics, and there is rarely a fluff story thrown in. One reason for this may be the lack of any competition. Hopefully though it is because they consider it their job to inform; not entertain.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
2 comments:
Well, we came dangerously close to selecting the same post topic again. I picked up on what you are discussing a while back and I had considered writing about it.
The other thing I find interesting about the major media outlets is how they have become so partisaned (CNN to the left and FOX to the right for example).
Good post and good points.
You make some excellent points here. News anchors (like Robin Meade) now are "personalities" and the news seems to be more about the delivery than the content.
But of course the news is skewed even outside the delivery. Think of who owns that Russian news station (like Murdoch and Fox news) and what news is focused on versus not focused on. For example, back in the 80s the Russians had state-owned stations, and news about entertainment was strickly approved or not aired. That's very agenda-driven, too... so even if entertainment is not discussed, the motivation behind that decision can be based on a variety of factors. How is the other news handled? What angle is it discussed in? Is the content debatable or considered "fact"?
Good post here. You made me thing.
Post a Comment