While I was talking to Mr. Doyle after school the content of the blog came up. A student who was in the classroom immediately said “People don’t want to hear about those things. People want to discuss OJ Simpson and how he was arrested again.”
I said, “That isn’t news.” And he replied, “Well, it’s news to the American people.”
I’m not a big fan of sensational stories sharing the same airtime as international politics, but ever since the Laci Peterson case, I’ve noticed more and more “news” stories that don’t constitute as news to me at all. The Peterson trial did not address an underlying social/ domestic problem that would have been enlightening. The first OJ Simpson trial at least addressed the role of forensic evidence in court cases. The focus of the Laci Peterson case over the depressing numbers of youth shot around the same time in Oakland made me angry.
I know the news want to widen their audience, but do they have to focus on sensational stories for such a ridiculously long time? I don’t think it’s fair for the families, the media input often influences the outcome of the trial, and it takes away air time from problems that can be solved.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
8 comments:
I think that information regarding trials, like that of OJ Simpson and Laci Peterson, are still creditable news. The connection does not seem as clear as other political news, but they set a predicament (Word choice? Well in case it's not right, I meant a sort of standard.) in which people exposed to these information view later cases and news.
I heard on somewhere that these sensational stories draw in a lot more viewers than international politics. And I think that sensational stories aren't just "news to the American people," but human beings in general love to know about others' personal lives, and maybe even triumph in their despair (maybe).
And these word verifications are impossible.. it always takes three or more times to publish a comment. Wow.
News is whatever people want to here. You can't same something isn't news just because you don't want to hear about it. If that were the case, the only news stories for me would be about sports.
Also, the Peterson family wanted the story to be highly publicized!
It's not a new thing-I'm sure you heard about "yellow journalism" in US History. Yeah, there were perhaps periods where there was some good reporting going on, but there has always, as far as I know, been a popular edge to it.
And I think Eddie is right: News is, almost by definition, what people want to hear. If no one wants to read about Israel or genocide, there is no way to publish it (where will the money come from?). Sadly, for the most part, they don't. Such is life... luckily, there are enough ways to get news out there (as this blog indicates) such that you can probably find what you want.
Okay, wow, this KQED Perspective "Something Serious" by Carol Aronld hits the question in the groin, maybe, in my opinion. I transcribe a short segment of this perspective below. There is also a link to the audio archive under this excerpt.
"Thanks too Micheal Vick and the media frenzy surrounding his dog fighting operation, the issue of animal cruelty has taken center stage. Although many have expressed outrage over this story, others think the attention is misplaced. If we cared as much about people as we do animals these comments go, we might be able to solve truly serious issues."
-http://www.kqed.org/epArchive/R709210737
I think the Petersons wanted the story to be very publicized...but its true, there are so many "newsworthy" events going on around the world but, sadly, people just aren't as interested in whats going on globally, they're more interested in whats going on locally. I think people are mainly interested in the news that affects them, so, if you think about it, it makes some sense that most news stations report on what is going on locally because thats what the viewers are interested in. In the last couple years the majority of news reports on international stories are mostly about the Middle East/the Iraq War because that's what people want to hear; they want to know how the war is going and if we're winning or not. Unfortunately, because people are mostly interested in things that affect them, other global stories aren't as publicized. For example, who keeps up to date on whats going on in Darfur? probably not many people because its not on the news often...but the genocide is still going on (there have been an estimated 200,000-400,000 or more dead and 2,500,000 refugees). I think Darfur deserves way more coverage than its getting...because its quickly turning into another Rwanda.
http://www.youtube.com/
watch?v=6VdNcCcweL0&mode=
related&search=
this is a funny video of a reporter refusing to cover a paris hilton story, even though it seems that eveyone else on the show wants her to do it. even though it's great when she says "can you burn this please?" and her fellow anchor replies that he'll "cherish it forever," it also shows how dumbed down the news can get, where celebrity stories take precedence over the war on terror or iraq.
I agree with Cynthia. The stories that people want to hear nowadays are mostly about “Brangelina” and entertainment news. In-depth stories about murders and such, like the Laci Peterson trial, become more of a household name than anything else. This, I feel, sort of exploits the families involved. I think that when most people discuss the trial, what comes to mind is Scott Peterson and the trials and the gossip news, rather than that Laci Peterson was a real person who was killed. I feel that because of peoples' need to know gossip about everything, the focus of the news has shifted. Now, when you turn on the TV there are stories about a drunken celebrity in rehab. Big deal. These people are regular human beings; why should we be so infatuated with them when we have our own real lives to live? And when there are so many more important things going on in the world...
Post a Comment