Quote:
Originally Posted by finnbow
I guess what caught my attention is the editor-in-chief's notion that "Egypt is over" (that would indeed be news if it were true) and the need to focus on fluff instead (e.g., America's oldest dog).
|
I know what you mean, I'm just looking at it differently.
I listen to an awesome radio show in the car in the morning. It's called "The Takeaway". I sent them a letter to tell them what a great job they did covering Egypt. They really explained what was going on, who the players were, what was really happening, how it all worked and what might happen next.
CNN, by comparison, pretty much said "Look, there's a tank! That guy has a rock! Oh, he threw it! That guy got hit in the head! Sure looks dangerous out there- hey, let's get a camera and go for a walk!" People like to see the pictures of a crowd in the streets. Once it all kinda calms down and there's no tank to shoot, or guy with a gash in his head, people don't so much care. Evidence PBS. People could watch Charlie Rose or The Newshour, but by and large, they do not. And broadcasting is a business. Doesn't take a brain surgen to say "hey, we might should get some more stuff to get folks to tune in or we'll lose our jobs".
Great journalism is great, but usually not real profitable. News theatre is a lot more profitable. And that means finding real life controversy. No controversy, no story. Overt controversy ended in Egypt - Egypt is over. Where's that cute dog picture!? But it is what it is and pretends to be nothing else. As soon as you see a paid ad, you know you’re looking at a for-profit product, not an objective news outlet. In this country, that seems to be what people want. They chose it over more objective coverage every day. In other countries they do it differently. But we have the choice and we get what we want.