i almost went crazy last weekend because of CNN. not because it's CNN, nor because the story that they were covering didn't need to be shared with the world. it did.
i almost went crazy because they kept saying the same thing over and over and over and over and over...ad infinitum!
and, i watched it...partly out of curiosity, partly out of a sick hypnosis, and partly because i wanted to watch it with new eyes - those that are starting to understand media and culture.
the news story was the oil spill.
i concluded a few things about this experience (some of them very tongue-in-cheek):
1. repetition has a powerful effect. the live video feed that was displayed constantly on every screen, showed a constant stream of dark oil pouring out of the rig, and made the enormity of the disaster that much more visible and disturbing.
2. using "experts" that have little to contribute other than their opinion has become the norm in reporting, just like Noam Chomsky said. i had never really paid notice to this phenomenon before, but after watching a "presidential historian" deferred to for his commentary on environmental disaster, all i could think about was how deeply they were committed to telling "their" story. i never did really understand the connection between the expert and the context, but that's the point - it doesn't matter. he was someone to fill the seat and talk.
3. the more sensational the better. cover-ups make for great news stories for entire weekends. and if there appears to be misconduct, it must have been misconduct. it's important to keep harping on that. it's never good to believe the best about people or companies, and it's always safe to assume that they will act in the worst interests of the public whenever they can. i think it was appalling that, even after an explanatory report about why workers cleaning the beach stopped after President Obama left, CNN reporters continued to throw suspicion on it and keep assuming that BP was bringing workers into the area to make it look good for the president. i guess it's just too difficult to accept that they may very well have been there since early in the morning and were trying to escape the hot Louisiana sun in hazardous materials suits.
4. if you sling mud on reputations, and the rest of society feels the same, it must be okay. when BP was ever given an opportunity to speak, or when their representatives' speeches were broadcast, there was an undertone of disdain, suspicion, and skepticism from the reporters or anchors. even if all of America hates BP right now, it doesn't mean that it's appropriate to present them as villains. the last time that i checked, they're the ones who could face bankruptcy over this, and i doubt that they intended for this situation to happen. it was an accident. a horribly devastating accident, but an accident all the same.
5. in the end, who cares if we're taking people away from getting the problem solved, if we can get them to talk about the myriad of issues that will satisfy the public's sense of entitlement? what are we entitled to anyways? as a cnn viewer, i don't think that i necessarily have a right to information. i have a curiosity, and a desire for that information. CNN has a duty and a motivation to provide me with that information. but do i need it? definitely not. in fact, i'd prefer to be provided with it once the full story is available, particularly on controversial or inflammatory topics.
i am disturbed by the ecological calamity that has been brought on the Gulf of Mexico. i'm saddened by the unimaginable damage that has been caused. i'm deeply sorry for the losses that so many will incur, including the lives of the animals in the gulf.
but unfortunately, i'm even more disturbed by the audacity of a news outlet to report stories with little perspective or context, commentary for the purpose of inciting emotional responses, and a one-sided approach.
No comments:
Post a Comment