I think it's time for the news to talk about something else

[nearwildheaven]

I’m not saying that we should forget about the Paris bombings, but it’s NOT the only thing going on in the world right now, and compared to other events, it affected relatively few people (although it did affect them very profoundly).

Wall-to-wall coverage didn’t last this long after 9/11.

I posted this question on another board, and it was about equally divided as to whether people agreed with me. I must not be such a bad person after all.

[PastTense]

I think you need to switch media: I see lots of other stories.

[Princhester]

@nearwildheaven

Wall-to-wall coverage didn’t last this long after 9/11.

You cannot be serious?

[Charlie_Wayne]

For the most part, don’t you think the news media just serves up what their viewers want to see?

I’ve heard people suggest that news media outlets “lead” the public by showing them stuff that tends to sway their opinions (i.e. brainwash them). But I’m not so sure. My guess is that they give the audience what they want. So if you are seeing too much coverage of this event, my guess is that’s because that is what the public wants to see.

I want to write a whole lot more. But I fear that most anything anyone says about the conflict between the West and Muslim fundamentalists (or call them ISIS if that’s more accurate) will just lead to a big squabble.

[jabiru]

@nearwildheaven

Wall-to-wall coverage didn’t last this long after 9/11.

Yes it did.

[panache45]

@nearwildheaven

Wall-to-wall coverage didn’t last this long after 9/11.

Were you in a coma at the time?

[Princhester]

@panache45

Were you in a coma at the time?

For months or years, I can only assume.

[Ambivalid]

OP, u cray-cray!

[kambuckta]

I can agree on one level. FFS, the Morning Show on Channel 7 is still streaming live from Paris. Reallly?

But yeah, after 9/11 the 24/7 coverage lasted for bloody days here…news stations love this shit, and they’ll milk it for every ounce of blood they can extract.

[protoboard]

@Princhester

For months or years, I can only assume.

I remember in 2002/2003 a lot of fear that they would get a nuclear bomb, if I’m remembering correctly.

[monstro]

I’m tired of the coverage too. But really, the news is just mindless entertainment for me anyway. It’s not like I’ll die if I don’t hear about the latest dig Trump made about Ben Carson, which was what we were bombarded with last week. The Paris bombing news isn’t displacing more important information, because there really is no “important information” out there that I don’t already know about. Almost all of it is junk or stuff that serves little relevance to my day-to-day life.

When the news is stuck on Paris, I turn it off. Simple solution.

[Frank]

@monstro

When the news is stuck on Paris, I turn it off.

At this point, following the typical pattern* of important news stories, 75% of it isn’t news anyway. It’s self-important blowhards bloviating.

*The first 12 hours are exaggerated and inaccurate reports and guesswork from the field, interspersed with comments on completely made up stuff from the anchor(s). From 12-36 hours is when the actual facts start creeping in–what really happened, where did it happen, who did it. After 36 hours you get a smidgen of news, a chunk of repeating what has already been reported, and mass quantities of blathering.

[Asimovian]

@Princhester

You cannot be serious?

Please tell me you did that in John McEnroe’s voice.

[Sailboat]

Here’s a cite:

Wikipedia on September 11 News Coverage.

There’s a lot there, but some highlights:

Television coverage of the September 11 attacks and their aftermath was the longest uninterrupted news event in the history of U.S. television. The major U.S. broadcast networks were on the air for 93 continuous hours. From the moment the networks broadcast the news that the first plane hit the North Tower of the World Trade Center, all programs and commercials were suspended, with all three networks broadcasting uninterrupted news coverage.[16] This was the first time since the advent of cable and satellite television that a vast number of cable networks would suspend programming to air live news coverage of events. Programming on the cable and satellite channels were also altered in the immediate aftermath, as only appropriate re-runs were aired, and commercials were either changed or suspended.

This was the first time since the assassination of John F. Kennedy that TV networks announced that there would be no television commercials or programs for an indefinite period of several days after the attacks, as it was widely felt that it was an inappropriate time for “fun and entertainment” programs to be shown when so much death and destruction was being seen live on television. During the week of the attacks, evening news broadcasts for the networks nearly doubled its average viewership audience, and it was also estimated that American adults watched an average of eight (8) hours of television, a day, again nearly double the average viewership audience.

ABC, CBS, Fox, and NBC would air commercial free, live news coverage until September 15.

Other networks stopped airing programs altogether, with a still card expressing sympathies being placed on screen; these included Food Network, HGTV, and DIY (all of them were owned by The E.W. Scripps Company), as well as Oxygen, and QVC.

At least for Americans, comparing the coverage of the Paris events to the profound and in some cases permanent changes that 9/11 coverage brought says more about how easily we forget or suppress bad memories than it does about the news cycle.

[Chimera]

I stopped watching TV news perhaps 10-15 years ago because of the endless 30 minute repeat cycle. It isn’t telling me anything new, and it’s often telling me something wrong.

Nowadays I read a lot of news on-line, where I get to control the content. Sure, I pull up CNN and there’s the huge BANNER OF EVERYTHING WE’VE SAID 50 TIMES TODAY, but it’s easy enough for me to scroll down and look at other shit. Same with every other blessed website.

[PatrickLondon]

@Chimera

I stopped watching TV news perhaps 10-15 years ago because of the endless 30 minute repeat cycle.

Almost by definition, that means a news channel is something to watch for just the one cycle, if you’ve missed one bulletin on a regular mixed schedule channel or can’t wait for the next.

Mind you, I don’t often bother with those either. The short bulletins on the radio, and my newspaper, are enough for me.

[GrumpyBunny]

@monstro

I’m tired of the coverage too. But really, the news is just mindless entertainment for me anyway.

That’s all that TV news is, really.

[doorhinge]

@nearwildheaven

…I posted this question on another board, and it was about equally divided as to whether people agreed with me. I must not be such a bad person after all.

(post shortened)

First, those two issues are not related.

Second, the media outlets have sent many of their star entertainers/news readers/talking heads to France. They need to get their moneys worth of airtime for the effort.

Third, I believe the media outlets are afraid that viewers will turn away from their programs to hear news of the fanatical, radical, bloodthirsty, Islamic terrorism in Paris, so they air as much coverage of the event as possible. At least until something better comes along.

Fourth, there are other stories being aired. You just have to change the station.

[Princhester]

@Asimovian

Please tell me you did that in John McEnroe’s voice.

No not really. Mr McEnroe would have said, “You can not be serious.”

[Johnny_L.A]

@nearwildheaven

Wall-to-wall coverage didn’t last this long after 9/11.

Were you not in the U.S. then?