Vultures Circling Overhead
I made a post in my personal journal yesterday about Liviu Librescu, the professor at Virginia Tech who sacrificed his life to give students an opportunity to escape. If you're feeling overwhelmed with all the negativity in the news, you might want to read what I said. It's short and (I hope) uplifting.
This post, however, is only nominally about Virginia Tech. More specifically, it is about the media coverage of what took place on Monday morning. In my statement about Mr. Librescu, I briefly alluded to the fact that I do not watch broadcast news any more, and have not since the Iraq War began four years ago in 2003.
I am not going to go into the history of broadcast media, nor the philosophical reasons why a free press exists. My beef lies primarily with the 24/7 news networks: CNN, Fox News, etc. These networks are in the unenviable position of having to deliver nearly constant updates, regardless of how long the story has been broken or whether there has actually been a change in the situation.
On a normal news day, this is not so difficult. The day's top stories are discussed in rotation, with other stories interjected as necessary to add variety and space out the broadcast. But when something monumental happens, the entirety of the broadcast is devoted to it. And while there are various different "shows" in addition to the headline news, they are still news-oriented, meaning that the entirety of a 24/7 news broadcast gets dedicated to something like the Virginia Tech Massacre, for as long as the news director feels it is relevant. So far, it's been two days. Anna Nicole Smith, whose death was nowhere near as tragic or significant, got far more coverage than that. (I cannot state how much more, because of my previously-stated ban on broadcast news. Wikipedia was no help.)
Details about what happened are still being released of course: the victims have not all been identified yet, we're still piecing together (increasingly disturbing) details about the killer, and of course there was a bomb threat this morning. But with the sole exception of the bomb threat, none of what we have heard about Virginia Tech since the death of Cho Seung-Hui requires a constant update. Details have been released on a periodic basis, it's true, but slowly - and none that couldn't wait for the next news update.
Given what I wrote about Liviu Librescu, it would be hypocritical of me to state that we don't need to hear from the families of the victims or know their stories. Personally, Mr. Librescu's death put a human face on this tragedy for me, and I am grateful to know that nobility and heroism exist even in the face of something like this. But in interviews, reporters have been asking friends and family of the victims if they have any grievances, fishing for scandal and gossip that they can repeat endlessly on the air. Basically, they're looking for anything new they can say to keep people viewed to their television for another half-hour or so.
In essence, we have a constant saturation of the event, with nothing new or substantive added to the discussion. I argue that this tragedy is being milked by the news networks for every rating point they can get. And why not? Broadcast news is a major stream for the multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates.
It used to be that broadcast news - on television and on the radio - was a federally-mandated public service; broadcasters couldn't get a license from the FCC without doing so. But somewhere along the way, the news stopped being about public service and started being about making money. Instead of journalistic integrity, we got scare tactics whose purpose was to frighten us into watching the eleven o'clock broadcast to learn what hazardous substances could be found in our own homes. ("Could there be toxic chemicals in your kitchen? Find out at eleven." instead of "New studies suggest you should avoid using these chemicals. More at eleven.")
It's true that the major news networks wouldn't air this programming if no one was watching. But I have serious issues with the lengths they'll go to rope viewers in, as described above. This problem has been seriously exacerbated by the existence of 24/7 news networks, but it began long before they were created. Unfortunately, I know of no solutions to the problem beyond tighter editorial control and a top-down, organizational emphasis on integrity and proper conduct.
I'd like to see the vultures circling overhead replaced with solemn individuals who report on tragedies like these with dignity and respect.
This post, however, is only nominally about Virginia Tech. More specifically, it is about the media coverage of what took place on Monday morning. In my statement about Mr. Librescu, I briefly alluded to the fact that I do not watch broadcast news any more, and have not since the Iraq War began four years ago in 2003.
I am not going to go into the history of broadcast media, nor the philosophical reasons why a free press exists. My beef lies primarily with the 24/7 news networks: CNN, Fox News, etc. These networks are in the unenviable position of having to deliver nearly constant updates, regardless of how long the story has been broken or whether there has actually been a change in the situation.
On a normal news day, this is not so difficult. The day's top stories are discussed in rotation, with other stories interjected as necessary to add variety and space out the broadcast. But when something monumental happens, the entirety of the broadcast is devoted to it. And while there are various different "shows" in addition to the headline news, they are still news-oriented, meaning that the entirety of a 24/7 news broadcast gets dedicated to something like the Virginia Tech Massacre, for as long as the news director feels it is relevant. So far, it's been two days. Anna Nicole Smith, whose death was nowhere near as tragic or significant, got far more coverage than that. (I cannot state how much more, because of my previously-stated ban on broadcast news. Wikipedia was no help.)
Details about what happened are still being released of course: the victims have not all been identified yet, we're still piecing together (increasingly disturbing) details about the killer, and of course there was a bomb threat this morning. But with the sole exception of the bomb threat, none of what we have heard about Virginia Tech since the death of Cho Seung-Hui requires a constant update. Details have been released on a periodic basis, it's true, but slowly - and none that couldn't wait for the next news update.
Given what I wrote about Liviu Librescu, it would be hypocritical of me to state that we don't need to hear from the families of the victims or know their stories. Personally, Mr. Librescu's death put a human face on this tragedy for me, and I am grateful to know that nobility and heroism exist even in the face of something like this. But in interviews, reporters have been asking friends and family of the victims if they have any grievances, fishing for scandal and gossip that they can repeat endlessly on the air. Basically, they're looking for anything new they can say to keep people viewed to their television for another half-hour or so.
In essence, we have a constant saturation of the event, with nothing new or substantive added to the discussion. I argue that this tragedy is being milked by the news networks for every rating point they can get. And why not? Broadcast news is a major stream for the multi-billion-dollar media conglomerates.
It used to be that broadcast news - on television and on the radio - was a federally-mandated public service; broadcasters couldn't get a license from the FCC without doing so. But somewhere along the way, the news stopped being about public service and started being about making money. Instead of journalistic integrity, we got scare tactics whose purpose was to frighten us into watching the eleven o'clock broadcast to learn what hazardous substances could be found in our own homes. ("Could there be toxic chemicals in your kitchen? Find out at eleven." instead of "New studies suggest you should avoid using these chemicals. More at eleven.")
It's true that the major news networks wouldn't air this programming if no one was watching. But I have serious issues with the lengths they'll go to rope viewers in, as described above. This problem has been seriously exacerbated by the existence of 24/7 news networks, but it began long before they were created. Unfortunately, I know of no solutions to the problem beyond tighter editorial control and a top-down, organizational emphasis on integrity and proper conduct.
I'd like to see the vultures circling overhead replaced with solemn individuals who report on tragedies like these with dignity and respect.