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...
Wednesday, February 14, 2007
Saturday, February 10, 2007
News: what is, what isn't, and whether it needs to be so depressing. (Part 1)
In this great nation, just about everyone has something to say about what's wrong with the news. Some people believe that the news is too negative. They're nauseated when they see images of war, crime, and destruction constantly being pushed onto our national psyche via the nightly news. What about all the good news? To others, the news is a bunch of frivolous, irrelevant fluff. They're disgusted by what they perceive to be a never-ending stream of celebrity drama and scandal. Is it really in the nation's best interest to inform everyone that celebrity A is cheating on his wife, celebrity B, and having a baby with celebrity C? And a small, devoted minority thinks it's all being staged by an evil alliance of evil jews in an evil lair in the evil town of Hollywood California. But since I don't have time to fly to the west coast and investigate the aforementioned claims of an evil lair, I'll try to address the first two criticisms, and talk a little bit about what (in my opinion) real news is.
First of all, for an event to be considered news, it has to be something NEW, something that represents a change in the status quo. For example, the following story is not news:
"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America continued to operate."
That story isn't news, because it doesn't represent a change in the status quo. By default, citizens in the United States of America assume that their government is operating. The following story, however, would be considered news:
"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America was overthrown by a group of communist revolutionaries from Georgia. Their leader, Steve Buttersworth, has set himself up as the leader of a provisional government which is currently working on a charter that will replace the old constitution."
That story IS news because it represents a change in the status quo. Normally, people don't assume that communists are establishing a new government in Washington DC. The people need to be informed when such an event occurs.
In order for us to go a little further into the subject of what makes news newsworthy, let's take a look at what most people in our society would consider to be the status quo for the average human:
(1) Person X is born.
(2) Person X gets proper education and nourishment, and grows up.
(3) Person X lives life as an adult. He/she has a roof over his/her head. He/she has enough food to eat.
(4) Person X grows old, and eventually dies of natural causes.
Additionally, you could summarize a little bit of what we believe the status quo of society to be:
-People are obeying the laws.
-Government is enforcing the laws.
-People are going to work.
-Buldings remain standing.
-Children are being educated
-Etc.
When you really think about it, it's only logical that much of the news is negative. People assume that the good things listed above are occurring in the world around them. They don't need to be told that "Thousands of children were born today", or that "Millions of people ate dinner tonight", or that "In the past week, a majority of citizens did not commit murder". In our subconscious, we assume that these things are happening. In a nutshell, no news is good news. But when someone breaks these normative patterns of society and life, news occurs. If you were a local news producer and you had to choose between the following stories, which would you pick?
(A) Bob Smith, an average, middle aged man, remains alive, after 38 years of average health.
(B) Jack Henderson, an average, middle aged man, was murdered in his home today. The killer remains at large in the greater metropolitan area.
What about these stories?
(A) The United Mutual building remains standing after 20 years of normal usage.
(B) The Northern FInancial building collapsed today in what officials are calling, "a terrorist action". Large portions of the downtown area will be blocked off indefinitely. The governor is urging citizens to give what they can to aid the families of those killed or injured in the attack.
In all of these cases the choice is clear. The Bad things are more newsworthy because they represent a change in the status quo that the public should be informed of.
But there's still a distinction that needs to be made between private tragedy and public tragedy. In other words, bad things that the public needs to know about, and bad things that the media has no legitimate reason to report. And there are still plenty of positive (or at least non-negative) events that can be considered truly newsworthy.
To be continued...
First of all, for an event to be considered news, it has to be something NEW, something that represents a change in the status quo. For example, the following story is not news:
"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America continued to operate."
That story isn't news, because it doesn't represent a change in the status quo. By default, citizens in the United States of America assume that their government is operating. The following story, however, would be considered news:
"Today in Washington, the government of the United States of America was overthrown by a group of communist revolutionaries from Georgia. Their leader, Steve Buttersworth, has set himself up as the leader of a provisional government which is currently working on a charter that will replace the old constitution."
That story IS news because it represents a change in the status quo. Normally, people don't assume that communists are establishing a new government in Washington DC. The people need to be informed when such an event occurs.
In order for us to go a little further into the subject of what makes news newsworthy, let's take a look at what most people in our society would consider to be the status quo for the average human:
(1) Person X is born.
(2) Person X gets proper education and nourishment, and grows up.
(3) Person X lives life as an adult. He/she has a roof over his/her head. He/she has enough food to eat.
(4) Person X grows old, and eventually dies of natural causes.
Additionally, you could summarize a little bit of what we believe the status quo of society to be:
-People are obeying the laws.
-Government is enforcing the laws.
-People are going to work.
-Buldings remain standing.
-Children are being educated
-Etc.
When you really think about it, it's only logical that much of the news is negative. People assume that the good things listed above are occurring in the world around them. They don't need to be told that "Thousands of children were born today", or that "Millions of people ate dinner tonight", or that "In the past week, a majority of citizens did not commit murder". In our subconscious, we assume that these things are happening. In a nutshell, no news is good news. But when someone breaks these normative patterns of society and life, news occurs. If you were a local news producer and you had to choose between the following stories, which would you pick?
(A) Bob Smith, an average, middle aged man, remains alive, after 38 years of average health.
(B) Jack Henderson, an average, middle aged man, was murdered in his home today. The killer remains at large in the greater metropolitan area.
What about these stories?
(A) The United Mutual building remains standing after 20 years of normal usage.
(B) The Northern FInancial building collapsed today in what officials are calling, "a terrorist action". Large portions of the downtown area will be blocked off indefinitely. The governor is urging citizens to give what they can to aid the families of those killed or injured in the attack.
In all of these cases the choice is clear. The Bad things are more newsworthy because they represent a change in the status quo that the public should be informed of.
But there's still a distinction that needs to be made between private tragedy and public tragedy. In other words, bad things that the public needs to know about, and bad things that the media has no legitimate reason to report. And there are still plenty of positive (or at least non-negative) events that can be considered truly newsworthy.
To be continued...
Wednesday, February 07, 2007
Why all the YouTube hype is just hype.
Google paid over a billion dollars for it. TIME adorned the cover of their "person of the year" issue with it's shiny video interface. And I think it's just another internet novelty that will seem like a big fat waste of money to certain corporate officers in about a year or so. If you've read the title of this article, you know that I'm talking about the ever-so-popular youtube.com site, a place where every cocob0y222 and katg3rl9 can post grainy videos of themselves talking about themselves, while thinking to themselves that other people actually care. And while countless commentators trip over each other to be the first to proclaim the advent of a glorious new age of media in which Mom, Dad, Dick, Jane, and Spot gather around their 15" LCD display to watch 320x240 flash videos created by the Hendersons down the street, I'd like to recognize YouTube for what it actually is: a poor quality (albeit free) distribution system for amateur videos that carries a high risk of copyright infringement lawsuits, and no risk of usurping the mainstream media.
First of all, I'm not completely "dissing" YouTube. YouTube is an absolutely wonderful place to find great videos like the "Numa Numa Dance", "The Evolution of Dance", and "KItty cat dancing!!!!!!!!!! yeeea". However, I think that only a true dullard would argue that YouTube is encroaching on the traditional media's turf. How many people skip American Idol to watch a 10 second clip of mnkyj4m111 from Wisconsin stuffing mentos into a bottle of diet coke? Many people may find the user-made videos on YouTube to be amusing, but in the end they're pretty much the same as the videos that your annoying friend (you know who he/she is) used to forward to you way back in '01.
Of course, I don't want to downplay the broad range of programming available on YouTube. What about the plethora of video blogs available for your viewing pleasure? Finally, the people who failed English 101 and can't find any real-life friends to talk to, can eloquently express their innermost thoughts via the magic of the Internet! Who doesn't want to watch some fat college student with his hat on backwards sitting in a dimly lit dorm, while offering gems of wisdom that go something like this:
"So... anyways... uh... I saw a movie today... and it had a black guy in it.... but anyways it was... like... pretty funny... but my girlfriend... was all like, no way!... but I still think it was a funny movie... also today... um... what? Shut up Chris! ... No! ... Shut up! ... You're so stupid! ......... that was Chris... he's like... my roomie.... "
And who could forget all the wonderful no budget sit-com wannabes that prove that no matter how bad the quality of mainstream comedy gets, there's always something worse just a few mouse-clicks away. Yes folks, with the advent of low-cost digital video, we're simply being deluged with high-quality content produced outside of the traditional studio system.
That isn't to say there's nothing good on YouTube. Far from it! There are millions of great videos on YouTube, namely the ones that people rip from proprietary sources such as DVD's and television. Remember that one great scene from that otherwise lousy movie you saw eight years ago? With thousands of users working around the clock ripping, encoding, and uploading copyrighted movie clips, there's a pretty good chance you can find it on YouTube. There's only one teensy-weensy problem with this: copyrighted material is, for the lack of a better word, COPYRIGHTED. And websites hosting copyrighted materials without a license to do so can get into a lot of trouble with the copyright holders. This is where YouTube ceases to be a good business and becomes a great big legal liability. Somewhere down the road, YouTube will be the target of a copyright infringement case that most experts are predicting to be "One Bad Mutha'". The question is really one of when rather than if.
But do I really hate YouTube? No. If you don't have server space of your own, YouTube offers a video hosting solution that may not deliver the best quality, but gets the job done. My point is that YouTube isn't the threat to the traditional media that (ironically enough) the traditional media is making it out to be. Maybe once everyone starts using the Internet2, massive computer monitors become inexpensive, and YouTube offers HD video hosting/streaming, the big broadcasting networks can raise their respective white flags. Until then, pixelated Flash-7 encoded videos aren't going to cut it as serious entertainment media.