CDZ Do news organizations make more of certain events than is warranted?

[320 Years of History]

If you are a CNN viewer, you know that in the course of the current blizzard, CNN has been airing pretty detailed reports of conditions in NY, DC, and other places hit by the storm. Now don't get me wrong, I think it's good for all of CNN's viewers to be aware that there is a blizzard going on through out the majority of the central East Coast and neighboring states. But is it really necessary or appropriate for a global news network to provide the level of detail they have been?

I mean really, I really don't tune into a global news channel to find out about the road conditions in NY. NY has plenty of local news stations that can provide that information. I know enough about snowfall in general to understand basically that roads are impassable or nearly so, that trees or large branches may come down and knock out power, and so on...Do I need CNN or MSNBC or Fox News or any other global news organization to also provide local news? No. Do those types of news channels need to cover and show the entirely of a governor's press conference to detail what power and road crews are doing to keep things as best they can? No. Just because a governor has something to say, does not mean everyone in the world needs to hear it.

As the situation is developing and on going, sure, tell me the federal government is closed. Sure, tell us all that the NY Stock Exchange is not operating due to the weather. Yes, please do inform us of other national or global impact things we need to know about. When it's over, it'd be good for them to share how much snow fell and that the authorities in the various locales have gotten things back to normal, so to speak. But "film every hour, at the top of the hour, and during most of every hour" of just how much snow is covering the streets and whatnot is just making too much of things. There are surely plenty of things going on elsewhere in the world, news, that are far more worth telling us about.

News channels place the same over emphasis on other weather events, like hurricanes and tornadoes. Of course, if the Yellowstone volcano erupts, that's going to be a national level geological/weather event.

Weather isn't he only example of the news industry over covering things. For example, when some lone looney-toon kills someone in Mobile, AL, unless he's a member of a cell that's going to do the same elsewhere, I really don't need to know. That is, I don't need to find out about it by tuning into a supposedly global news network, unless, of course, there's truly just nothing else going on in the world. What are the odd of that?

 

[Auld Phart]

News stations have a tendency to go on, and on, and on one subject, and ignore the rest of the news.

I've got to the point I watch a movie/tv show, switch to the news for a bit, watch another movie

 

[Kosh]

"Journalists" (and I use that term loosely) are taught to embellish stories in their college years..

It is just like how MSNBC, CNN, etc. claimed Trump was a non issue and was only going to print stories of him in their entertainment section.

Then suddenly they decide to dedicate full days to Trump, because they needed the ratings!

 

[I amso IR]

One would think New England matters. What is really perplexing is the fact that the ugly repulsive southern states which are affected are included in the reporting. Mean while, out in "fly over country" snow continues to happen with no regard. Janice Dean of FOX, a lady I respect, indicated 85 million people were expected to be affected. Think of how many would be affected if all New Yorkers left Florida and returned home to "good old New York". The veracity of New Yorkers is bottomless as well as unfathomable. "Hang on sloopy, hang on", as that should generate a retort or two!

 

[FA_Q2]

News covers what people watch. The problem is not that news over reports or focuses to much on menial things. The real problem is that the majority of their viewers only care about menial and pointless shit. It is why the current activities of the Kardashians are more known than major US FP.

 

[TheOldSchool]

Do news organizations make more of certain events than is warranted?

Absolutely. Some do it with the purpose of pushing an agenda. It's all about the $$$

 

[Elvis Obama]

New organizations do not determine the amount of time to devote to a topic based on editorial judgement. It's based entirely on whether they calculate the story has "legs". If they think it does, they walk the story till the legs fall off.

 

[Spinster]

"Journalists" (and I use that term loosely) are taught to embellish stories in their college years..

It is just like how MSNBC, CNN, etc. claimed Trump was a non issue and was only going to print stories of him in their entertainment section.

Then suddenly they decide to dedicate full days to Trump, because they needed the ratings!

Nope, they dedicate full days to insignificant issues because "it's a slow news day". Consequently, they are hoping to gain increased viewership. News people inherently embellish, not something they are taught in college, it's a DNA thing. This is a precursor to being a habitual liar, which is why you can't trust the news and can't trust any historical information. Theories are published as factual data which they are not. Look at all the inaccuracies published about JFK, for example. Total rubbish!

 

[Spinster]

One would think New England matters. What is really perplexing is the fact that the ugly repulsive southern states which are affected are included in the reporting. Mean while, out in "fly over country" snow continues to happen with no regard. Janice Dean of FOX, a lady I respect, indicated 85 million people were expected to be affected. Think of how many would be affected if all New Yorkers left Florida and returned home to "good old New York". The veracity of New Yorkers is bottomless as well as unfathomable. "Hang on sloopy, hang on", as that should generate a retort or two!

New York and California are the only thing that matters in this country, one would think. That's fine with me as I prefer not to have any attention to our local area because if people are ignorant they won't move here. The less clueless people here the better. Clueless Californians ruined the real estate market here about thirty years ago by them overpaying for property, and it hasn't recovered to this day.

 

[320 Years of History]

One would think New England matters. What is really perplexing is the fact that the ugly repulsive southern states which are affected are included in the reporting. Mean while, out in "fly over country" snow continues to happen with no regard. Janice Dean of FOX, a lady I respect, indicated 85 million people were expected to be affected. Think of how many would be affected if all New Yorkers left Florida and returned home to "good old New York". The veracity of New Yorkers is bottomless as well as unfathomable. "Hang on sloopy, hang on", as that should generate a retort or two!

Uh...say what? What does anything you wrote, or anything being reported about the blizzard, have to do with New Yorkers' veracity?

Me thinks you have attempted to use a $5-word without knowing its meaning.

 

[I amso IR]

The veracity of New York is beyond question, simply ask any New Yorker. As for my seeming contradiction, oh well!

 

[Indofred]

There is no news, but there are stories that generate advertising revenue.
The news companies have a 'bums on seats' rule.
If people watch and agree or relate to a story, it's worth printing.
If the story isn't going to liked, they won't touch it, regardless of the importance of it.

 

[oldsoul]

I agree with the op, while it is important to know about the storm(it does affect our nations capital as well as NY, the "financial center", AKA Wall Street), I don't really care about the road conditions. The major news outlets nearly always ignore such events in "fly-over contry". Case in point, my region recently experienced -20 temps (and colder) with wind chills well below that. The only coverage nationally? A mention about how it may effect an upcoming NFL game. If anything remotely close to -10 temps. and wind chills lower than -15 happened in NY, it would have been covered like a natural disaster. Yes I know more people in NY than upper midwest. Does that make the situstion any more or less dangerous? No. Would a full day of coverage on deadly cold fit into the "climate change" agenda? Um... let's see... NO. When was the last time you heard about an earthquake in Alaska? Or a blizzard in Denver? Does that mean they either a) didn't happen, or b) where insignifigant? NO, and NO. The major news outlets focus on what directly affects them, therefore, a hundred year storm in Farg, N.D. would be a story (maybe), but not a whole days worth of news.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree with the op, while it is important to know about the storm(it does affect our nations capital as well as NY, the "financial center", AKA Wall Street), I don't really care about the road conditions. The major news outlets nearly always ignore such events in "fly-over contry". Case in point, my region recently experienced -20 temps (and colder) with wind chills well below that. The only coverage nationally? A mention about how it may effect an upcoming NFL game. If anything remotely close to -10 temps. and wind chills lower than -15 happened in NY, it would have been covered like a natural disaster. Yes I know more people in NY than upper midwest. Does that make the situstion any more or less dangerous? No. Would a full day of coverage on deadly cold fit into the "climate change" agenda? Um... let's see... NO. When was the last time you heard about an earthquake in Alaska? Or a blizzard in Denver? Does that mean they either a) didn't happen, or b) where insignifigant? NO, and NO. The major news outlets focus on what directly affects them, therefore, a hundred year storm in Farg, N.D. would be a story (maybe), but not a whole days worth of news.

TY for your remarks.

Truly, though I used the storm as my example -- mainly because I got sick and tired of the major news outlets just going on and on about it as though nothing else of note was going on in the nation or world -- the weather is hardly the only thing with which they do it.

Now, I'm not one to bitch and moan about something someone else does and not also offer an alternative. In that vein, the national/global news channels could have, particularly since most of the event occurred on a weekend wherein two of the nation's key sources of "what happens" had literally nothing happening because the people there were snowed in, done any, probably all, of the following:

• Deep dives (10-20 minutes) on other Presidential candidates besides Mr. Trump, who has gotten more than his fair share of media coverage. They could probably also leave Mrs. Clinton out of that too.
• Informative pieces on any number of topics that likely aren't well understood by most folks, including, but not limited to stuff such as the following:
  • Trends in homebuilding
    
    
  • New tactics for stopping diseases like Dengue fever and malaria
  • A host of economics topics that folks think they understand but don't
    • Socialism and capitalism compared and contrasted
    • Where economic systems and a political systems overlap and don't overlap
  • Cultural deep dives on Islam, China, Mexico....pick a culture, religion or country other than our own
  • Domestic or international social issues fully explained and given context rather than platitudes
  • Myriad cosmological topics
  • Discuss the idea that Dongshan He developed in mathematics whereby he showed that it's mathematically possible for "something" (namely the universe) could have been created from nothing.
  • Interview two constitutional scholars and have a deep dive discussion about the Founders intent re: any number of things....2nd Amendment, equality, etc.
  • Deep dive on little known facts about Christianity, Judaism, or any other religion.
  • Examining what historical events and cultural factors gave rise to the current strife in the Middle East

I realize news organizations probably can't just toss together those sorts of reports on short notice, but they didn't have to this past weekend. They knew all week long that two to three feet of snow were going to hit the Mid-Atlantic and New York. And they had multiple options for developing the content for such coverage: license content similar to the video I inserted above, reach out to scholars/experts and line them up for appearing on the weekend, etc. I mean really, if in two hours I can research a topic well enough to write a ten page paper, I know damn well that the research staff of a news network can do so and more.

 

[oldsoul]

I agree, I was merely giving more examples of weather related topics. One could use the San Bernadino shooting (or any other "mass-shooting/terrorist act), Presidential debates(not always, but often enough), excetera. The point is, there are times when news organisations grab onto a story, and see nothing else for a long period of time. I seem to remember this happening with the O.J. Simpson trial several times, as well as the day he was arrested after the "high speed" chase.

 

[320 Years of History]

I agree, I was merely giving more examples of weather related topics. One could use the San Bernadino shooting (or any other "mass-shooting/terrorist act), Presidential debates(not always, but often enough), excetera. The point is, there are times when news organisations grab onto a story, and see nothing else for a long period of time. I seem to remember this happening with the O.J. Simpson trial several times, as well as the day he was arrested after the "high speed" chase.

Yes, that's another fine illustration of the point....as if our knowing was going to have a darn thing to do with the verdict, or help the jury, prosecutor, judge or defense with the case. LOL