0 dead in lack of NYC train derailments (Biased reporting in the news)

Great Debates
1

(New York) Millions of commuters were not hospitalized Monday, following no mishaps with New York’s public transit system. Estimates place the number of trains not involved in crashes in the tens of thousands. So far zero people have been found dead and an additional zero were injured, but rescuers have not given up hope and the search for bodies continues. Brooklyn resident Shelley Robinson said, “It was horrible, there were all these people milling around with a glassy look in their eyes. And I just knew that every single one of them might make it to his or her destination unhindered…” before breaking down into hysterical sobbing. In other news, an estimated 281 million Americans were not affected by gun violence, and approximately 300,000 rottweilers were not involved in attacks on children.**

Ok, enough is enough. When will the media stop trying to manufacture and embellish the news and just report it? I don’t need somber, teary-eyed news anchors to speak in subdued tones and tell me that deaths are tragic and needless. If it’s tragic, I am certain that I have the proper socialization and emotional responsiveness that I will know it on my own.

This complaint was obviously prompted by the nonstop coverage of the train derailment in Iowa, in which A SINGLE PERSON was killed. It’s really sad that one person died, and doubly sad that 90 people were injured, but it does not warrant round the clock headlines for days on end.

It’s tragic that two kids were killed at Santee high school in San Diego. But I should not still be seeing shockwaves in the news. Events are disproportionately represented in the news in order to make it seem as though they happen all the time, to further the political agenda du jour and demonize whatever cause we are all supposed to be fighting against (guns, rock music, supposedly vicious dogs, Jennifer Lopez, etc).

I don’t need reporters to tell me how I should feel about an event, only to tell me that it happened! Am I alone in this? Do the media do a quality job of reporting? Do we need more “heartfelt human interest” stories? Or should we get “just the facts, ma’am”?

Thank you. The floor is open to commentary and discussion.

**[sub]this is on the assumption that current US population is approximately 281 million humans, and 300,000 rottweilers[/sub]

2

I would refer you to the latest issue of the Columbia Journalism Review, which relates the sad, sad story of WBBM-TV in Chicago.

Tired of consistently finishing third in the ratings, they overhauled their news operation. No more gratuitous live shots. No more trite “news” stories that promote the network’s prime time programming. Serious news for serious people, produced by real journalists.

The result – after a short period where viewers sampled the product, the station sank even lower in the ratings. Critics assailed it, management fought over it and the noble experiment was discontinued after less than a year.

I would also note the programming shift taking place at CNN, where they’re getting away from more straight news and analysis programming and into more commentary and discussion. Why? Because O’Reilly is now beating King in the ratings.

Lesson #1 – news is the way it is because that’s what viewers want.

My own experience: During the Mississippi River floods of 1993 the TV stations basically dropped all normal news programming for 6 weeks and concentrated on coverage of the flood, everything from civic response to those exciting pictures of homes being washed away. According to St. Louis’ most senior news anchor, during that 6 weeks, the crime rate did not change, the number of carjackings, drug busts, drunken drivers, etc. – the whole detritus of local news – neither increased or decreased. We didn’t know any of this, because the stations weren’t covering that kind of news.

Lesson #2 – just because the TV stations make a big deal out of it, doesn’t mean it wouldn’t exist otherwise.

3

To the list of reasons the news is so sensationalized, I would like to add “ratings.” They have to have viewers to support advertising expenditures during their programs. Therefore, the loudest, most obnoxiously excited portrayal of whatever just happened, ends up being the most viewed.

Frankly, I hate this. I don’t think the nightly news ought to look quite this much like Jenny Jones. I can not tell you how sick I get of watching some poor schmuck stand in the howling wind and yell at me about the horror of the current weather situation. Just tell me the damned temperature and move on.

My other favorite is the “late breaking news” that interrupts your “regularly scheduled program” during which a harried looking, wide-eyed journalist informs you, “We have no news as of yet…”

Sadly, this isn’t about reporting appropriately, it’s about getting good ratings. It’s business. And I do understand that those who own and run the business have the right to do as they see fit. But I agree with you…it’s annoying and it’s prompting me to turn OFF my television, rather than helping them reach their goals.

-L

4

kunilou:
That truly makes me sad. If there were such an offering here in the New York metro area, I’d watch and be extremely vocal about watching it, and I know a large number of people who would do the same.

Just to clarify, I’m not saying that things happen because of the news (one exception, I’ll touch on that shortly) or are exacerbated by reporting. My point is that the media feed us nonstop stories about Columbine HS, Santee HS, etc to make certain that images of crying students are burned into our collective consciousness and to make it SEEM like violence of this type happens regularly and often. That way, when it comes time to vote on (or call your senator regarding) more gun control legislation, you remember the tear-streaked hysterical children and vote to eliminate the evil things. All based on emotional appeal rather than fact.

sexywriter:
I know, I know. I’m complaining about something that probably will never change.
We have basically two choices: On one hand, we could have a publicly funded, state run news machine that operates independently of ratings and advertising interests. But then you get your news controlled and filtered by the government censors, and the idea of a free press is nonexistent. Benjamin Franklin would turn over in his grave.

The other alternative is a press run entirely by capitalist concerns. This time, the news media are slaves to ratings and advertising money, where your news is censored and filtered through the political agendas (agenda?) of the people who put up the cash to air the show, and the idea of a free press is nonexistent. Benjamin Franklin would turn over in his grave.

Remember the old joke about the difference between Communism and Capitalism? Under Communism, man exploits man, but under Capitalism, it’s the other way around!

Sigh this is depressing.

Oh, kunilou, here’s the exception I promised you. Terrorist action, and any other crime where publicity and attention are the aim of the act, is made worse by media coverage. These kids wanted to send out a message, and their message has gone out. Other kids who can’t handle the teasing that is a normal part of adolescence saw what happened, saw the outpouring of sympathy for their own positions (poor socially maladjusted, nerdy, D&D playing kids getting picked on by the popular kids) and get the idea that, hey, this is a great way to get attention! We’ll go out with a bang! I sincerely believe that if they didn’t get such a high level of attention from the news, these crimes would be even fewer and farther between.

5

Forgive my reductionist approach, but I’ve noticed three recurring pet peeves with television news. Only the first relates directly to the OP, so I hope this won’t be considered a hijack:

The “We have information that could save your life. Tune in at 11:00” promo. If it’s that important, how can you withhold it in good conscience? I’d love to know the implications if someone saw the the promo but then died before the newscast. Of course, I doubt the circumstances will ever play out precisely enough for a TV station to be called to answer for this (and since a test case would require someone’s death, I’m rather hoping it won’t happen. Maybe they could try a case like this on “Ally McBeal” or something). This sort of promo is just another tease, but projected to the most absurd contingency it’s borderline evil.

News does not listen to itself. Several years ago, Jessica Dubrof died while trying to become the youngest person to pilot a plane across the United States. After her death, there was much hand wringing in the press that she would not have attempted that record, and not have died, if not for the press coverage she was getting (this is part of the recent trend of news coverage about news coverage, which I haven’t made up my mind about, yet). The press organizations said they would have to think hard about whether they should encourage these things by reporting on them. A few months later, a law was passed prohibiting youngsters from taking the controls of an airplane. It was reported next to a story about a boy setting off from Japan to be the youngest ever to sail solo across the Pacific. As far as I know, I’m the only person who noticed the irony.

Glorifying ignorance. I’m an extremely curious, and reasonably intelligent guy. It gladdens my heart to have a message board like this that rewards those things, because I find almost no trace of it in the news. After any sort of science story, the news anchors seem to take pride in not understanding it. I saw a news report about the discovery of planets orbiting distant stars, based on the Doppler shift of the star’s spectrum. That’s something most people could understand if they wanted to, but the news doesn’t give them any reason to want to. After the report the anchor says “I don’t understand any of that”, smiles at co-anchor, smiles into the camera, “And now, over to Wayne with the sports.”

But I can also understand how TV news became the way it is, and why it stays that way. It’s sensationalistic, short-sighted and simplistic, but so are most things. Why should news be immune to the shortcomings of the world? I’d like to see news rise above those things, but I don’t know that I would reasonably expect it to.

6

“It’s tragic that two kids were killed at Santee high school in San Diego.”

“Tragic,” really? Sounds like somebody’s been brainwashed by the media…

Now, I can see using the word “tragic” for all children killed by guns every day (maybe 8 or 9 on average).

7

Reminds me of the first time I heard about the Hantavirus. I turn on the radio and hear: “<crackle>…and there is no cure for the mysterious virus that has claimed 12 lives so far. Coming up in sports and weather…”

I was literally screaming at the radio, “F*CK THE SPORTS AND WEATHER!! TELL ME ABOUT THE GODDAMN LETHAL VIRUS!!!”

J.E.T.

8

My beef with the news is that there exists an impression that an item’s importance is proportional to the amount of coverage it receives. Forget about the incidence of documented brain cancer caused by cellular telephone use, in an age of widespread mobile communications, such a scare attracts attention.

A related beef concerns so-called investigative reporting. A quick example: a story about racial bias in retail outlets sent two ladies, one white and one black, into department stores. Hidden cameras documented what happened. The white lady was allowed to browse unobserved, and paid for her purchase with a credit card without hassles. In contrast, the black lady was clearly watched by the cashier while she looked at the clothing, and when it came time to pay and she produced a credit card, the cashier asked for ID before allowing the transaction to proceed.

What does this prove? Zip. Although they did go to more than one store, this is a study with a very small sample number. We know nothing about how the reported selected the particular department stores or clothing departments. We also know nothing about how many times the black lady was treated identically to the white lady (not newsworthy :rolleyes: ). And perhaps there were even times when the white lady was asked for ID?

Am I saying that racism and bigotry don’t exist? No, however, in the format presented, this story does nothing to address this question at all.

9

So are you suggesting the Mods delete any of the threads posted here about Santee and other shootings? Particularly this notoriously provocative one?

http://boards.straightdope.com/sdmb/showthread.php?threadid=62837

10

Robot Arm, those are just teasers to get you to watch the news. The health reports are just general tips designed to allow you to live longer. They aren’t “If you’re suffocating from a plastic bag wrapped around your face, be sure to watch tonight’s news for help.” Even if it was, how could you ever hold the news responsible for a death because they didn’t report a health feature soon enough? There are millions of health and safety tips out there that “could save your life.” Some even do. But you can’t blame the station for failing to eradicate all your medical ignorance just because they have the means to.

11

Hmmm. I’m rereading my post, and I fail to see where I said any other deaths were not tragic. I was making a point specifically regarding the overreporting of this one specified incident.

However, speaking of somebody being brainwashed by the media…

Why is a child killed by a gun any less tragic than a child killed by poisoning, drowning, automobile accident, automobile homicide*, etc (each of which claims more children’s lives than non-suicide gun uses)?

According to the CDC, Firearm deaths are on the decline (a fact that anti-gun people tend to trivialize), and in 1998, discounting suicide, there were 2551 deaths up to the age of 19 attributed to firearms, averaging to 7 per day. But do you really consider 17-19 year olds “children”? I don’t. Discounting the 15-19 year old group, the number drops to 458 total, or slightly more than 1 per day. Still bad, but much less than, say, poisoning or drowning. Hardly an epidemic problem.

kunilou:
Read what I said, pal. Where does my post say “Discussion boards should not be allowed to discuss things, and all discussions should be deleted”? Actually, what I said is that the news media should report facts, not glamorize acts by discussing them at length for weeks or months on end. See the difference? SDMB is not a news show, or wasn’t the last time I checked. How exactly you got from “I don’t need the news to tell me what I should think” to “discussion boards should not discuss issues” is beyond my ability to explain.

*[sub]did you hear about the four students killed when another student drove a car through a crowd on campus? It happened in another part of California the very same week as the school shooting, and was twice as deadly. I wonder why not?[/sub]

12

I know, and I said as much. The circumstances that might call the practice into question are an astonishing leap of logic. The promos go by almost too quickly to even think about. But taken literally, at face value, it just rubs me the wrong way. And shouldn’t we be able to take the news at face value?

[sub]Staggeringly idealistic, I know. But the debate here is about what we’d like the news to be versus what it really is, just the place for idealism.[/sub]

13

Damn you robot, the “more news at 11…” epidemic was going to be my contribution. I very recently saw such a story on the local news here in Chicago (something tells me it was Fox, but i can’t say for sure). I am not exaggerating when I say that during a commercial break from some show or other they had a promo shot for news wherein the reported actually said “a popular children’s toy has been recalled, stay tuned to find if your household is affected”

can you say YIKES?!?!?!?!?!?! Didn’t the Simpsons do a Ken Burns bit like this once? that scares the shit out of me.

My two cents on the whole sensationalsim angle, which i posted somewhere else, is that we really need to keep in mind that, as of this writing, 4 times more people have been killed this year as a result of naval submarines surfacing beneath their fishing boats than by being shot by a high school gunman.
I mean, really, this is a catastrophe worthy two solid weeks of round the clock coverage, survivor/poilce/family of the victim/family of the “alledged” killer/15 year old exgirlfriend fo the “alledged” killer interviews?

Lord almighty.
gimme traffic already…
CJ

14

I see absolutely no difference between the two.

On the one hand, you say that the news media are ramming their opinions down our throats for days on end. On the other hand, you say its perfectly okay for participants in discussion boards to do the same thing – sometimes for months on end.

You say that “any. . . crime where publicity and attention are the aim of the act, is made worse by media coverage. These kids wanted to send out a message, and their message has gone out.” Fair enough, but how is it different when we discuss it here? Are we smarter? More mature? Last time I checked the thread I had mention, it had more than 3,000 visits and more than 200 posts. Can you tell me that none of those 3,000 readers was an immature kid who can’t tell the difference between discussion and a call to action?

I think we’re both agreed that you have a perfect right to turn off any news program where you don’t like the content, and I have a perfect right not to read any thread whose content I dislike. But don’t blame “the media” unless you’re willing to include “the Internet.”

15

Maybe someone like ruadh who has lived in both the US and UK could confirm or deny this - it was mentioned on the radio the other day that only the first couple of minutes of US “news” programs would be considered news in the UK. The rest is just consumer reports and human interest mush.

If so, that is a shame.

pan

16

This just in!: Forget the school shootings, forget the children - YES, forget the children - and forget about any derailments folks…this just in…

…We are watching a developing SNOW STORM right now and we are expecting 0-99 inches from Atlanta right up to Maine… Let’s go live to Bill “I’m standing in front of Home Depot’s shovel section” McLure…

“Hi, Bill here, I’m standing in front of what used to be the shovel section here at Home Depot…BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH BLAH!!!..back to you Jim”

Hey, they leech onto anything that get’s them a reason to go to someone in the field with “the latest”.

Snow, trains, children…it doesn’t matter. Imagine if you will if a blizzard was coming and three kids were holed up in a school with hostages while a train derailed. How would they cover that? They’d page all their “best” reporters and get them in the different field locations.

People watch. “The masses” are a interesting bunch. Remember an honest cliche’: “No one went broke underestimating the intelligentce of the American people.”

I will forever have the memory of a Weather Channel reporter placing a YARD stick into “snow piles” and reporting that there is “1/2 inch of snow on the grass right now”.

Me: Half inch? No shit.

17

I think the most telling symptom of the biased nature of current news reporting comes in when, just back from a commercial extolling the virtues of Viaflixiphenatolate (side effects may include vomiting, diarrhea, dizziness, nausea, borborygmi, sudden loss of blood pressure, dandruff, and the heartbreak of psoriasis), we get treated to yet another heartwarming news story about a miracle drug being developed by the pharmaceutical industry, which will soon be available to anyone who can afford it.

I understand that the news is a commercial enterprise, in the business of attracting viewers, but that kind of kickback is almost unwatchable. It seems to go along the lines of “Well, the pharmaceutical industry is our biggest advertiser. Let’s pass along anything their PR flacks send us verbatim; then they’ll advertise more.” Meanwhile, actual news never gets to the screen.

I’m equally nonplussed about news time being eaten up by tie-ins to the networks’ hour-long news/glurge shows. A short clip from the story in question gets shown, then we get to see an embarrassed newsguy refer viewers to 20/20/Nightline/60 Minutes for the full story. Don’t they have time scheduled in the commercial breaks for this stuff?

So, in addition to the hype of whatever topic the network is pushing, we have another five minutes of the networks using news time to pump up their profits.

And sometimes, there’s some news in there, if they have any time left.

Argh.

18

It was “mentioned” on the radio? I don’t suppose it was “mentioned” how this statistic was obtained? E.G., how many and which news programmes were evaluated, and what was the standard for determining whether an item was “real” news or not?

Consider this for a moment. The US has probably hundreds of media markets, on probably all of which are broadcast several hours worth of news programmes per day. In the US, the duration of virtually all TV shows is in 30-minute increments, and they’ve got to fill up that time with something. Contrast that with the UK where the scheduling allows a few minutes of news to be snuck in here and there throughout the day, often simply repeating the news that was broadcast earlier when there isn’t anything new to talk about.

Spend enough hours in one day watching Sky News and you’ll see a lot of “human interest mush”, too. I speak from experience here.

Now having said that I do certainly agree that a lot of American news programming is much softer than it could or probably ought to be … and I’m not hollering at you, kabbes. I just wonder if whoever made up this statistic was taking into account the huge amount of news programming that exists in the US compared to in the UK, and I question whether a comparison of the actual number of hours devoted to hard news in the two countries would show a significant difference.

19

Tha’s alright, ruadh. Anyway I prolly deserve a little hollering for repeating something half-heard on a radio show (5-live FWIW) whilst getting ready for work.

The context was glurgification of news and the pros/cons of the various changes in news reporting patterns in the UK over the last couple of years. One of the studio panel made the above comment. Nothing to back it up really, which was why I was asking for your actual experience.

pan

20

First rule of broadcast news: If it bleeds, it leads.

correlation to the rule, Blood in your country is of greater importance than the equal amount of blood in another. ie, a plane crash in Iowa that kills one could be page one news in Iowa, and be buryed on page ten in New York.
These are things I have noticed.