Rating: 5 | Votes: 1 | Views: 1082 | Comments: 3 | Favorited: 0
Channels: Entertainment - Television
Tags: news day - stories - news - day - investigative journalism
Growing Bolder Community
Just another WordPress site
About This Blog
Twitter
facebook
Google
Linkedin
Pinterest
digg
del.ici.ous
redditChannels
Pink Boxer shorts and the Death of Originality
Views: 1,082Added: Wed. Jul 08, 2009 12:53pm
Posted in: Television
What has happened to our media? I (sort of) understand Michael Jackson death news on every channel, he was kind of a big deal. But recently I was flipping through the channels and saw yet another story about the kid who went to battle in pink boxer shorts on every channel. Seems he's going to frame them or something. It's a good story, and human anecdotes help put a face on things like war. I totally get that. But there are somewhere in the neighborhood of 142,000 troops in Iraq. Not a single one of them has done anything interesting other then the the kid who wore pink boxers?
Does every news story, no matter how insignificant, have to be repeated ad nauseum on every news station, every broadcast, every day? Do we really need so very many chuckly opinions of that one kid's ass? I realize that cute stories are hard to come by in war, but that's not my point. Where's the competition for our views? If every channel shows the exact same stories, what's the point in having more than one station?
Newspapers are biting the dust every single day. Most shows that call themselves news are really "Newstainment" some sort of hybrid, opinionated show meant to hold our waning interest, totally uninterested in actual fact. Integrity is gone. Investigative journalism is gone. Today's news is more like a news reality show than hard-hitting journalism. What passes for investigative journalism, shows like Nancy Grace, is lurid sensationalism at its absolute worst. Digital National Enquirer. I can feel my brain cells rotting as I type.
Seriously. We deserve better. We deserve news. Real, unique stories, well researched and fact-checked. Competition for our minds and our viewership. Think about it. Do you really care about which channel you tune to for news? Why? If they all show the exact same news, what makes one better than the other? Nice hair? Cleavage? Be honest.
Bolder Broadcasting, Inc. ©2006-2012 Bolder Broadcasting Inc. All Rights Reserved.
sherisaid
- » view
- » report
Posted 10:24am July 14th, 2009Katy, I think the real problem is in under-reporting. Far too few reporters sourcing hundreds of thousands of news outlets...and reporters all covering the same stories.
Katy
GB Staff
- » view
- » report
Posted 9:43am July 14th, 2009I completely agree with your sentiments ... and am constantly amazed at your spin on the news. I have to admit, I was one of those people sucked in by the pink boxer story!
Here's the thing, from a producing standpoint -- at least from my perspective ... when you're presented with the same stories and headlines every day, and you're trying to fill your space (whether it's a newscast, a newspaper or a blog), you tend to overthink the importance of what's new.
When I was in a TV newsroom, and we were on the fourth straight day of the same story, I sometimes forgot that not only were there people who had NOT been watching 8 hours of news a day like I had, the story itself was still important. Just like in your example, I know (and I'm a little ashamed to admit) that I had moments while covering the Iraq war when I asked "what's new? If I lead with this again, won't my viewers think it's a slow news day and change the channel?"
None of this is an excuse ... I'm really glad you pointed this out, because it makes me re-think my judgement on all the stories I work on -- not just the biggies, but the little ones, too.
Ginger!
- » view
- » report
Posted 1:25am July 9th, 2009Oh, Sheri! Thank you. You don't really want to get me started on the media, but....too late. Personally I'm sick of all of them. They're more interested in hype than fact, agreed; but beyond that they are the most blatantly intrusive, uncaring, irresponsible, unreliable, borderline criminal, trash-anyone's-reputation-group-ever-given-power in the world. They hide behind the first amendment quoting 'freedom of the press' and saying the public has 'a right to know'. What they don't give a damn about is a person's right to privacy!!!! The people who are famous for whatever the reason should have the right to a private life. They give everything they have while they're onstage, onscreen or in office; they should not have to bare, so to speak, every aspect of their private lives. But I also blame the general public for feeding off of all the media stories as if their lives depended on it. Why do people get such a kick out of seeing someone at their worst, i.e. without their makeup, or not dressed to kill, etc.? How would they like it if they couldn't leave the house to run to the store without a pack of paparazzi taking pictures of how 'unglamorous' they look and posting it all over the TV or internet? Then there's the children of celebrities. Do they not have the right to grow up in a normal environment? Why should they be subjected to everyone's sick need to know what's none of their business? I think it's time the media is taken down a few notches and told that privacy is one of the most treasured rights we have in this country and to BACK OFF!!
That being said, I can't help but wonder how different Michael Jackson's life might have been if he had had some of the privacy he so desired and deserved.