Why are reporters sent to stand in an empty parking lot in the dark, to report on a city council meeting that won’t happen for 6 more hours? Is there something about standing in front of a closed building at 5 am that gives reporters extra insight into a story?
Our local TV news stations are gaga over on-the-scene reporting in deserted areas where something has already happened, or may happen later. Nothing is added by this, as far as I can tell.
How about the weather drones who have stand in the middle of a hurricane or hailstorm to do the reporting? Someday, someone will be hit with a flying Volvo or football-sized chunk of ice. Can’t someone point a camera out a (preferably closed) window?
I agree, along with the ‘feels like’ temperature which makes no darn sense since whatever the temperature is that’s what it feels like. 89F with 90% RH doesn’t feel like 103F, it feels like exactly like 89F.
Didn’t TWC get busted for faking this a few years ago? A reporter was pretending to lean into hurricane force winds, when a couple goes casually strolling by in the background?
The New York Times has long been fascinated by goings-on in the Hamptons and regularly reports on parties/fundraisers (which are mostly an excuse for massive flaunting of wardrobes, jewelry and other trappings of success), other social gatherings, traffic getting out to and back from the Hamptons to civilization (i.e. Manhattan), the lack of affordable housing in the Hamptons (making it difficult to keep servants/tradespeople on hand to service those who don’t have to worry about such things) etc. ad nauseum.
Mainly though we need to get rid of the Daily Jumble in the paper. It’d make more room for reporting on Bomb Cyclones.
Or a reporter at a crime scene 8 hours after the fact, after the on-site investigation has concluded and the yellow tape removed. Just to interview the neighbors I guess.
I’m not a fan of the broadcast including the press release from whatever company for whatever new product product has just dropped [ahem, Apple]. It isn’t news; it’s a sales pitch.
I don’t watch the TV news, but occasionally will catch a minute in the gym locker room. The local news seems to send people out to drive the roads, to report on EITHER the weather (excessive heat, or storms in the winter) OR the traffic itself.:smack:
Hey Bob and Susie back at the station. Traffic is crawling here on I90 - likely due to all of these idiotic news vans…
Also the above-mentioned wedding announcements. Sometimes newspaper articles are the only resources available to document such events, especially if Sherman burned your grandparents’ county seat to the ground.
I can’t believe classified ads are still a thing in newspapers.
Let’s see, I can use Craigslist for free and put as many full color photos and text as I want to.
Or I could use Facebook marketplace for free and do the same thing.
Or I could pay a professional website like Autotrader a few bucks, put a ton of info on the web, and get a national audience.
Orrr, I could pay my local newspaper an outrageous price to sell my car in 8 words or less??
The Oregonian has apparently decided that the criteria for “best restaurants of pick-a-year” are tiny portions made of ingredients you never heard of, called something that you couldn’t identify with a dictionary, and that cost upwards of $150 for a “tasting menu”. How about best restaurants for normal people who like normal food?
Every once in a while, I’ll see a local paper that prints the obits alongside birth announcements. I’ve found it amusing to bid farewell to Gus, Ethel, and Gertrude, while we welcome Madison, Brittany, and Hunter.
Yeah, my answer to the OP’s question is: pretty much all of TV “news” strikes me as utterly useless at best, propaganda at worst and bland nonsense the majority of the time.
I can honestly say I get zero percent of my information from TV and next to none from online video sites. When I am subjected to TV (usually in airports where it’s for some reason inescapable) I’m struck by how much of “reporting” seems to be one talking head commmenting on what some other talking head said a few minutes ago. The scientific term “circle jerk” often leaps to mind. The only times I can recall TV news being useful were during extraordinary events like 9/11.
I think a lot of it is people like the drama of “debate”, such as it is, when commentators go at each other. They want to see the zingers, see somebody get “owned”, and never mind the facts. And they also probably enjoy the inane chitchat between news anchors.
Goddammit, Marshall McLuhan was right! I hated reading him, but I now have to acknowledge he was 100% correct. The method of communication is just as important as the content, often more so.
I have CNN as my front page so I have basically seen the entire gamut of “news that isn’t even news yet is somehow on CNN’s website front page”.
Basically anytime a waiter anywhere is given a bad tip, CNN is right there to cover it. And half the time it seems the bad tips are a hoax.
Fat women looking good naked. I have no idea, but during two separate BREAKING NEWS DISASTER coverage literally the only headline not related to the disaster on the front page was a story of an overweight woman gaining her confidence back posing nude for a pictorial.
Reporting ANYTHING Disney has done. Marvel announcing a new movie SHOULD NOT be a major news story.
I often have a 24-hour news channel on, just for background noise. I have no problems with legitimate news (that is, national and local current events), weather, and sports; but one thing I just do not get is celebrity news. I have no interest in who wore what to an event, who is breaking up with whom, or who announced their third marriage; and I really don’t understand why anybody would have such an interest.
Says the guy who apparently never lived in Houston.
(geezer voice) Wait’ll you’re up in years, sonny, then you’ll get to appreciate the obituaries. My enemies kept getting older, now they’re dead, hee hee! [/gv]