I'm from up north, but that doesn't necessarily mean I'm a fast person. Sure, I can keep up with modern society. In fact these days my phone can keep up on it for me. But I'm a college student, so I'm intimately familiar with the feeling of being rushed towards a deadline that I don't yet fully understand until I've already flown past it. I can't even imagine what it's like to be a journalist these days.
But unlike in my case, where at least I'm getting an education, reporters aren't getting anything, except a paycheck, and maybe a bonus. But if they want to get a bonus they have to get the story first--common knowledge, right? But how do you get the story first in a world where information travels instantly? It's like running around with a camera crew and TV makeup on trying to beat a photon around the world. It makes absolutely no logical sense, especially since no one's getting any real education out of it.
Why then, are reporters using a late nineteenth century model to try and comprehend the world of twenty-first century news? It produces an amusing world of televised chaos, a cold war over incredibly tiny bits of information. Somewhere, in secret bunkers carefully constructed by highly trained engineers all over the world, reporters in helicopters and hair greased anchors in news vans are just waiting to be deployed on another Monday morning drag race to Afghanistan so they can all tell us the exact same wire story about how democracy doesn't work because the Afghani president who was elected last year doesn't support the American geopolitical agenda. But see, if CNN gets there first then the CNN guy gets to read the wire story to the four people who still watch cable news live.
The whole model of on-location, over-dramatized reporter-centered journalism is obviously approaching collapse. Not only is the internet more competitive, not only can viewers and readers find what they want instead of being force fed Monday morning foreign policy updates, but it's so much cheaper than a 73 billion dollar situation room with an election coliseum and paramedic therapists on stand-by for the sensitive presidential candidates dumb enough to wander in unarmed. And it's not like the "mainstream" media has missed the boat in terms of getting really, really active online. It's just taken its old model with it, its deliberately over-competitive speed spiral where journalists are expected to get the story faster than instantly.
No wonder people on TV news stations are crazy. They work in insane asylums.
Well I would have to agree with the sentiments here. I've long wondered why a reporter, who is simply reading facts that have been gathered by some grunt worker, needs to be standing directly in front of the location. I mean it seems to me that it would be cheaper to just do some green screen work and have the reporter stay in the studio.
ReplyDeleteNevertheless, I feel as though the world of broadcast media is going to have to change in order to keep up. We Americans want our news immediately and seeing as though most of us are on the go, we are not going to have the time to go sit down in front of the TV to see the news story in the middle of the day. Personally, I get text updates about breaking news and the little three line synopsis is all I really need at the time. I think this has created a culture where, as you point out, reporters have to be the first one to get the story out. This has led to crazed journalists running around trying to find what they consider the next big story.
Call me crazy, but I'm nostalgic for the days of coming home and sitting around the living room watching the nightly news to see just what happened throughout the day. This "constantly connected" attitude that many Americans have, myself included, can be exhausting. For some, the little three line synopsis they get on their texts is all they will ever read about a particular news story. This is particularly dangerous because then you have people running around with half the story who don't really know what they're talking about.
I think this "Speed Spiral" that we live in has guaranteed that we are informed the second the news breaks. The problem is, the majority of us may know about a news story, but many have no idea what it really means.
First of all, "Speed Spiral" is the name of my new EP dropping next month, so thanks for that, Gil. You will of course receive compensation and full copyrights.
ReplyDeleteSecondly, I strongly agree with the sentiment that reporters seem to be using an outdated model to deliver us news in a much more technologically progressed 21st century world. However, I wonder if I'm quick to agree with you because I find T.V. broadcast journalism to be the most annoying variety. In your post you make the excellent point that TV news can hardly hold up to the speed of texts or tweets firing around the world. But couldn't the same be said for news papers? At least television has the advantage of being updated and breaking the news a few minutes late -- newspapers have to wait an entire day. Now, to be fair, newspapers have made up for this by providing online versions of their periodicals. But this defense can be afforded to TV networks -- CNN, Fox, MSCNBC all have internet versions. What more can we ask of them for now? Are we making a mountain out of a mole hill?
And as for Robbie's nostalgia, I would argue you're in safe hands. Even if the major networks deteriorate into twitter feeds and updating browsers, I think there's good reason to believe your family will still allowed to be crowded around the monitor for years to come because of local news. If you compare how far behind your local news is just with respect to the outdated suits they wear, the lo-phi graphics, and grainy weather report, think of how much longer it would take them to completely digitize. Yeah. I think we'll be able to watch the local news on our television sets for a long time.
ReplyDeleteFirst off, Christine-- It's possible "Speed Spiral" could already be taken by these girls, you might have to check! (http://www.npr.org/2012/02/08/146581790/in-russia-punk-rock-riot-girls-rage-against-putin)
ReplyDeleteI do agree that having reporters stand out "on the scene", even if it's a day before or after the actual news event is ridiculous. But I think it's worthwhile talking about why this came to be. In my Mass Comm class with Dr. McFarland we learned that this idea of being on the scene came after the JFK assassination. What was supposed to be a fairly mundane half-news event became a national tragedy within seconds. From this point on, many broadcast news stations decided to always have a reporter on the scene, just in case anything were to happen.
Fast-forward a few decades, and the tragedy of 9-11 shows us the benefits of 24-hour news networks as well as the introduction of the continuously scrolling bar at the bottom of your screen.
Who knows what major news events of the future will further shape the way the media covers events, and while I hope along with Gil that "The whole model of on-location, over-dramatized reporter-centered journalism is obviously approaching collapse," maybe it's only going to get worse..
Kai...
ReplyDeleteBeatles...Let it Be
The Replacements...Let it Be
Both awesome...both important contributions to the rock and roll.
It's fine to have a record (EP) with the same name as another band's record (EP).