News: what is, what isn't, and whether it needs to be so depressing. (Part Deux)

Having established that news needs to be something truly new (a change in the status quo), several things still need to established.

First of all, the general populace doesn't need to be informed of every little tragedy or abnormal event that occurs in the world around them. Back home in Hawaii, the local news couldn't go a week without presenting at least one sob story about an alcoholic high-school jock who died in a car crash while partying with his friends late at night. The stories always followed the same basic formula: An interview with the sobbing mother ("He was such a good boy!"), followed by an interview with the sobbing girlfriend ("He was my entire world!"), the not sobbing, but more-introspective than usual guy-friend ("He wasn't -like- just another guy... he was... like... the man"), and the indifferent, divorced father ("He was... a good kid. Probably."). Afterwards, the anchor-person would solemnly intone the moral of the story, usually something along the lines of "talk to your kids about the dangers of drinking and driving", and then some fat guy would give everyone a sports update. That kind of story is nothing more than shameless emotional exploitation. Everyone that had a legitimate reason to be informed of the boy's death had already been informed. Who exactly are news reporters helping when they shove their microphones into the faces of mourning friends and family members? In order for a story to be valid news, it has to be something that affects the audience, not just something that pulls their heartstrings.

If, for instance, the mayor of San Francisco died in a car crash after a night of heavy drinking, it would be the local news station's responsibility to report the event. Millions of people have the right to be informed when the man they elected into office has his life unexpectedly snuffed out. It's an event that affects the audience. We can go even further and create an example of a slightly less significant tragedy that still warrants local media attention. Let's say that Bill Smithson, a philanthropist in the town of Smithville passed away early this morning. Mr. Smithson was a prominent member of the town, and contributed substantial amounts of money to local institutions. Buildings all over town bear his name: The Bill Smithson Public Library, The Smithson Concert Hall, The Smithson Center For The Criminally Insane, etc. The people of the town, even though they may not know him personally, are all very familiar with Mr. Smithson. Due to the fact that most of the local audience has been touched by this man's life, I have no objection to the local news doing a story on this man's death.

Generally, the question journalists should ask before reporting an event can be stated thusly: "Why does my audience need to know about this?". If the journalist honestly has a good reason to tell thousands of people about an event, he or she should do so. But If a satisfying answer to that simple question can't be found, it's best for the story to go untold.

To be continued even further...