JJohnson 0 #1 March 21, 2003 Do reporters really have to fill every second wit their meaningless dribble? Do they have to repeat themselves endlessly, using different words to say the same thing? Have they never heard that a picture is worth a thousand words? Two days of this war and already I watch the news coverage with the sound turned off. Fuckin blood sucking leeches. God I'm glad I bailed on getting a degree in journalism. A stupid example: 20 minutes of coverage on a peace protest here in Chicago......not on their message...but on the back up of traffic it caused!!!JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Gawain 0 #2 March 21, 2003 Turn to Fox News, Greg Kelly is with US Troops crossing the berms into Iraq right now. The movement is amazing. No sensationalization that I can see...So I try and I scream and I beg and I sigh Just to prove I'm alive, and it's alright 'Cause tonight there's a way I'll make light of my treacherous life Make light! Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jessica 0 #3 March 21, 2003 QuoteGod I'm glad I bailed on getting a degree in journalism. Yes, God forbid you try to improve weaknesses from within. Generalized outside criticisms are MUCH more productive.Skydiving is for cool people only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #4 March 21, 2003 Well, now, come on. He does have a point . . . not all of these guys are exactly Earnie Pyle.On the other hand, I doubt he has any idea how difficult news really is -- let alone spot news.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #5 March 21, 2003 Personally, I think that one of the worst things to happen is the advent of cheap 24-hour news TV stations. I mean -- you have all those hours, and you have to fill them with SOMETHING. There isn't enough time for analysis, or picking the important parts out, or weeding out the drivel. This isn't to take away from the people trying to fill those hours -- there just isn't enough significant news to fill them as a rule. And when there is, people are going to disagree on it anyway. Somehow there has to be a happy medium between 1/2 hour in the evening and 3 24-hour news stations. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
quade 4 #6 March 21, 2003 I'm not sure if CNN is the -worst- thing to happen. Certainly there is a lack in the "gatekeeper" concept and a lot of times what the viewer gets is unfiltered news with absolutely no contextual analysis, but on the flip side of it, you know that you're not being fed a lot of censored BS. For instance, if it were not for CNN you wouldn't have seen the opening stages of the first gulf war or hardly anything to do with Tiananmen Square or the Berlin Wall falling. There ARE certain times and certain occurances in recent history that were ONLY covered live by CNN. The Challenger explosion for instance. It's because they have this huge amount of time to fill and this huge world-wide resource that they can continue to cover events like no other organization on the planet. Yeah, they pay like crap, but I still think they're a pretty good thing overall. Probably the -worst- thing to happen to news is the slow incremental slide toward triviality of major events and the elevation of minor scandals to major coverage. Go get and watch a copy of the movie "Broadcast News" and see what Holly Hunter's character was complaining about -- well, that's happened and gone overboard. Gone are the days of Woodward and Bernstein. Gone are the days of true investigative journalism. It's a shame, but I also understand how much that costs to produce.quade - The World's Most Boring Skydiver Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
wmw999 2,589 #7 March 21, 2003 I see what you're saying; "worse" is an overstatement. It's just that with all of those hours to fill, well, something has to fill them. So you hear the same headlines every 20 minutes or whatever, and you change channels after awhile. To keep you from changing channels, they sensationalize it, make it pretty, and "dig" for lurid or incriminating details. Which makes people scared to share real news. Wendy W.There is nothing more dangerous than breaking a basic safety rule and getting away with it. It removes fear of the consequences and builds false confidence. (tbrown) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Iflyme 0 #8 March 21, 2003 If you don't like -- just turn it off! Your remind me of the guy who goes to a restaurant, finds a bug in his first bite of food, but eats the whole meal anyway, then complains. Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
billvon 3,120 #9 March 21, 2003 >Do reporters really have to fill every second wit their meaningless dribble? Well, ya don't have to watch it. Or listen to it. Or even read about it. What's the alternative for them - play classical music along with images of the war? That would be creepy. Or have ads for McDonald's running in the background as they show a helicopter crash? That would be tasteless. So they babble on, which is what they do (and what they always do; it's their job.) Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
AggieDave 6 #10 March 21, 2003 Quoteplay classical music along with images of the war? Strangely enough, I sort of like that idea. Not just big classical names, either. Use some neo-classical composers, like Bernstein...could you imagine Overture to Candid playing while tanks are rolling?--"When I die, may I be surrounded by scattered chrome and burning gasoline." Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
Jessica 0 #11 March 21, 2003 QuoteWhat's the alternative for them - play classical music along with images of the war? That would be creepy. That's very Clockwork Orange-esqe. Yet it strikes me as strangely appropriate; many of the viewers seem to have the impression that this is a movie, or a video game. Boom! Kill Iraqis! Baghdad's on fire, 500 points!!! As far as 24-hour news networks go, I only watch them if there's a breaking story or I need to catch up on all the world news quickly. They were never meant to be stared at for hours. And they're great in a situation where news is actually happening, even though the news might be happening slower than our afore-mentioned explosion-desiring majority might like. I'll always remember watching those Pennsylvania miners get rescued live on CNN. The entire newsroom was weeping.Skydiving is for cool people only Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #12 March 22, 2003 >Generalized criticisms are MUCH more productive.< And a lot more fun as well.....JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #13 March 22, 2003 I find newspapers to be easier to handle, if not exactly up to the minute. Normally what they type was at least thought out. For the highlights I read the bullets that CNN rolls across the bottom of the screen. When something new hits, then I turn the volume up and wait for the in depth coverage. I find some their inane babbling and off the cuff philosphy to be on a par and as informative as most McDonald's commercials. You really should have heard this chick's description of the traffic stoppage.JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
JJohnson 0 #14 March 22, 2003 Whats your malfunction?JJ "Call me Darth Balls" Quote Share this post Link to post Share on other sites
