What I've noticed lately about news, is that it definitely seems to be of the "more is more" school - or the belief seems to be "more information" makes you more informed. With the Presidential debates last fall, they had up to the minute "scores" from a whole bunch of pundits flashing on the screen as the debates were happening. You could tell who was "winning" in real time (is the point of the debate really about winning and losing? Or is it about explaining which policy perspectives are better for America? . . . oh, right, sorry.)
I was watching CNN today and they had the DJIA updating by the second on the screen, plus a scroll of headlines at the bottom, plus whatever the dude on the screen was rambling about. The problem, obviously enough, is that television allows for all of this "raw" information, but so rarely do you get any analysis.
Possibly, with addition of moving pictures to the news, you get a more "real" perspective on what's happening. Sometimes, not having a television makes me feel that I'm missing out. Maybe I'd understand what was happening in Iran if I could see the pictures. Of course, what you see is represented as "real" or "objective", but is, in fact, subjective and determined - you get what the person behind the camara and the folks in the editing booth want to show you. On top of this, although a picture is worth a thousand words, without context, the picture is still only a part of the greater story. It's the greater story that I think gets lost with mainstream media - it's a whole lot of "objective" journalism (read - inoffensive), and so little context and analysis.
To me, when it comes to choosing between CNN and, say NPR, or Democracy Now, it's a choice between Quantity and Quality.
No comments:
Post a Comment