Posted by:
rodmalm
at Fri Nov 21 12:26:32 2003 [ Email Message ] [ Show All Posts by rodmalm ]
I agree with you completely. The news seems to exist today to "make news" instead of to "report the news". Your account sounds more like they were trying to incite a riot to me!--then they could get a story! I was listening to a middle of the road talk show a couple of days ago and 2 men called in who had just recently come back from Iraq. They both said that were being interviewed by a couple of the big 3 (abc, cbs, nbc) news agencies when they were in Iraq, and when they said that everything was fine, the news crew yelled cut and didn't want to hear any more about it. They were only looking for "bad" news, and didn't want to report that things were fine.
I really don't think they bother to check their "facts" either. I was in a union about 10 years ago and we were on strike for a couple of reasons (cost of living increase, and seniority rules). The media came and covered the situation, but they got every reason wrong! None of the reasons they listed on television or in the local paper were what the Union was asking for.
I know another general interest story the did about someone that had a pet cockatoo. Cockatua alba (Umbrella cockatoo) that they said weighed 10 lbs! (If you know anything about parrots, these birds weigh typically 400-500 grams, and a bird in the 1 1/2 lb range would be so obese that it probably wouldn't live long. A 10 lb. one would be impossible! Birds don't deposit fat on their bodies like mammals do. They deposit it internally and it displaces their air sacs and lungs until they eventually suffocate. There isn't enough volume inside that speicies of bird's body to hold 1/10 that much weight! Yeah, a 10 lb. cockatoo sounds sensational, but it's not true.
These are two stories that I absolutely knew the facts about and they got them (the pertinent facts) totally wrong. Yes, there was a strike and there was someone with a cockatoo, but other than that, it was all nonsense. And how is the public helped or "imformed" by such stories when everything pertinent is wrong? Is the purpose of the news to WOW people? If I want to be wowed, I'll go see an action flick!
(I also find it ironic how Bush's trip to the U.K. needed all the extra security and how few new agencies mentioned that the extra security was needed because of these violent peace activists. Nor do they mention that these same protesters are anti-British, anti-government, anti-capitalist, etc. They go on forever about how many protesters there are, and then there is a small 5 second blurb about 65% of British supporting the Bush and the action in Iraq. When was the last time you heard about a violent pro-war or pro-Bush demonstration? Now that'd be an interesting story! Examine why the peace movement is so violent and why the supporters are so placid. We had a problem here last year at the University of San Francisco when a mob of peace activists attacked a bunch of people who were there supporting the action in Iraq. Fortunately, news agencies were there to report on the peace movement and a number of people got it on tape so there was proof of who attacked whom. The local police had to create a perimeter around the supporters to protect them from the peace activists! It (the attack) didn't get nearly as much coverage as all the peace activists that were blocking traffic, defecating in the streets, throwing up, etc., or even as much coverage as the peace protest itself! I guess in the news business today, sensationalism sells, and it's more about ratings than balance or truth.)
Rodney
[ Hide Replies ]
|
RE: World Trade Conference...The Media in action - rodmalm, Fri Nov 21 12:26:32 2003