Pages

Thursday, August 31, 2006

Breaking News?

So what would you consider breaking news? If you watch CNN these days, it seems that there is a breaking news story every 2 hours. But is it really breaking? Is it urgent? About 80% of the time, I find it is not urgent at all. And if it's not urgent, what do you call it? Well, it is .... news. Yeah, you know, the stuff that happens every day. But, if you watch CNN regularly (and god help you if you do), EVERYTHING is sensational, compelling, so significant that the graphics and music indicate a major disaster has just occurred. But when you look again, it's really nothing at all. It's just a news story.

So my questions:

1. What does this tell you about the state of television news these days?
2. What effect does this have on peoples' psyche long term?
3. Can people who watch CNN, ever step back and see the big picture?

What gets me, is that when the current administration went into Iraq, they "justified" it to the country with a load of BS. CNN's priorities were not to investigate the policy or protect the public, rather to make sure the graphics, the sizzle, were spectacular enough and therefore maximize ratings/profits. They were icing when we needed cake. They are no longer a news organization, a reliable watchdog. They have become much like the big tobacco companies, selling you a product and hoping you get addicted to it. Instead of nicotine, they use a sensationalized package which feed on all our fears.

It's just so damn sad.

2 comments:

Steve said...

Now I see what you were getting at! I agree we do need an occasional Edward Murrow in our media, but I'd rather they keep commentary to the Editors page myself and otherwise just report on events... such as they are. Sorry to disagree with you. There should be a "formal" watchdog system, and the media should be reporting on the watchdogs & politicians both. Using the media as watchdog is stop-gap and doesn't address the real issue of political accountability.

Martin said...

While I like the idea of having a formal watchdog, the media still has a duty to perform, I believe. And I'm not talking about editorials, although that is part of it as well. What I'm talking about is the good ol' fashion grilling the politicians - holding their feet to the fire. I mean questioning everything with a Murrow-like tenacity and making it difficult when the latest policy from the gov't smells a little fishy. Today, I don't see this at all - from the CNNs, MSNBCs, or the networks. I see graphics and glitz, providing a digital soundtrack to the lies that come out of the Bush administration.

This is not an editiorial exercise, it is fact checking, scrutinizing and seeking the truth. That's what I'm talking about. If we had morte of this before, maybe Iraq would have turned out differently. Maybe, Bush wouldn't have been relected.