Harriet Hutto e-mails me several times a week with trenchant observations on the news (and the newspaper), as well as intriguing slice-of-life tales regarding what’s going on in and around her home of Holly Hill. But I haven’t been able to get her to put anything on the blog since I started it. So it is that I take it upon myself to share with you these thoughts, part of a missive she sent me Monday night:
The other thing….you mentioned the fact that London won’t be intimidated and goes on with business as usual. You know why the U.S. doesn’t do that? Because of the media! I’m sorry, but that’s the truth.
They show things like that over and over and over and interview everybody’s mother and best friend and veterinarian….anybody who will talk into a mike or recorder. Just tonight, they mentioned on TV that several reporters were almost harmed yesterday while covering Hurricane Dennis. Do you know what? Viewers do NOT demand to be shown every puff of wind or spray of the ocean. We can understand that the forces of a hurricane are dangerous without having to see every mud puddle. I don’t feel sorry for reporters who PUT themselves in that situation…or at least their employers put them there. That is pure-T silly. TV stations and newspapers have a hard time understanding the difference between a reader’s/viewer’s RIGHT to know and NEED to know. Maybe we do have a right to know everything about everything. But, frankly, I don’t WANT to know every detail.
I don’t mean to be slamming your profession, but it wouldn’t hurt for you all to understand that sometime. Everybody wants to be the FIRST to report the "breaking news" so they go overboard. Let someone else be first. So what? If it’s not even a good story, who cares? If it is a good story, being second is not a big problem. If your readers/listeners are loyal to your TV station or newspaper, they’ll find out about it there anyway.
Okay, I’m back off my bandwagon now. I have to climb down, because somebody is hungry.
I share all that in order to give me the setup to say: Harriet, you are absolutely right. Slam away. It’s not my profession, after all — I happen to be a journalist. And even if it were, I’d say the same. What 24/7 television "news" has done to America’s sense of proportion with regard to the events and issues of our day is appalling. (I especially like the fact that she singled out the overcoverage of weather, a subject that has driven me batty for years.)
This is the second time in the last few days I’ve had to assure someone (last time it was Phil Lader) that I am not offended when they offer well-founded criticism of "the media." I welcome your criticism of me personally, if you’ve got a good point. I certainly don’t mind your sharing thoughts that I’ve expressed over and over myself. Keep ’em coming. I’ll just sit here and applaud.
Related Posts
Harriet’s wonderfully stated complaint deals with context. Al things being equal, information theory would give the edge to TV because of its greater bandwidth and immediacy – more information faster from today’s highly mobile cameras. However, providing context entails high production costs: nothing beats well-produced news specials or documentaries, but it takes considerable time and effort to compile, edit, and produce such works. The result is that we get the same video snippets and voice-overs every half hour, especially on weekends, and are left starving for the “new” in “news.”
A complicating factor is the mobility of receivers – the means by which consumers get the information. Sure, cable channels offer around-the-clock coverage (usually repetitive), but the receivers are generally fixed at home and available only to subscribers; the coverage is generally national, not local. There are no broadcast all-news TV stations in our area, so news via a mobile TV antenna is hit-or-miss at any time other than the regularly scheduled news shows.
Despite its lower bandwidth, radio is superb for its immediacy. Production costs are low, receivers are portable, and coverage is international, national and local: citizens can call the station to report events in real time. But context is ephemeral because of the time, effort, and costs associated with such productions. Some stations schedule news broadcasts on the hour or half-hour, but again one gets the news bites but with little context.
I look to the morning newspaper as my source for context for world, national, and local events. Reporters and editors will have had as much as 24 or as few as three hours to apply their genius in reporting the previous day’s events. I want context – I heard or saw XYZ last night, but why is that important, relevant, or compelling? What’s neat about newspapers is that we can easily scan them – move from page to page, section to section – then return to the details in each section that seem relevant to us. One can’t do that with TV or radio. Moreover, a great newspaper reporter will give us the latest facts and provide some background to help us make sense of the immediate events being reported. News analyses are easier – less expensive – and one must not forget the context-masters, the columnists.
Today’s Internet blends TV, radio, and newspaper features. I get most of my news from the Internet, but I subscribe to the dead tree versions of the world’s two greatest newspapers – The State and the Wall Street Journal – because there is nothing like newsprint and the ability to skip around a broadsheet to get a general sense of what’s happening, then drill into the stories that arouse my curiosity. But the Internet versions of these and other newspapers allow me to search for items of interest, something one can’t do with TV, radio, or print media. But one can’t easily get Internet news when blasting down the interstate or sitting at malfunction junction – the Internet is most beneficial when accessed via broadband from a static location.
I note that you use your blog to augment or expand upon what you offer in print. The benefits include context, immediacy (why don’t you blog 24×7?), and interactivity via your comments. It’s better than email because others can easily access what you and others have written. You do a good job of adding links to provide context.
Harriett is mistaken in her assumption that the British media is less obsessed with silliness than our own. After all, Great Britian is a nation obsessed with the toenail clippings of the Royal Family, and don’t forget the most successful British export of all time, the tabloid.
As far as the assertion that London will be undeterred and go about it’s business, non-stop media coverage has not made Americans more likely to be paralyzed with fear over terrorist attacks than our cousins with the funny accents. I believe the opposite is true – and your next post supports my argument – we are in fact numb to it all after a few days and go about our business until the next tragedy is brought to our attention by the media or a pretty, white American girl goes missing somewhere in the world.
I think it’s also worth remembering that while attacks by radical Islamists might be new, Great Britain has seen terrorist attacks far too often in the past from the IRA. The resolve of the British people as compared to Americans is, again, much more due to the fact that we’ve lived in splendid isolation from attacks on our own soil for all but a couple of days over the last century or so.