Those are all good reasons to care deeply about the tragedy, and to want to hear the facts.
But they are not good reasons to watch the media for hours and hours repeating the same *non-factual * drivel.
There simply are no new facts to report, and we all know it.
Emotions are not facts, and should not be considered news. Live interviews with “experts” who have nothing new to say are equally stupid.
IF new facts do become available, of course the media will report it immediately. But that’s no reason to keep the TV on nonstop all day, wallowing in tragedy, hoping to hear something newsworthy.
No, you wouldn’t. You might get more coverage of what the event is if people don’t already know. An apparent terrorist attack in the U.S. is always going to get pretty much wall-to-wall coverage, although at a smaller event there might be less camera footage or fewer witnesses to talk to. I agree it’s annoying when people are just speculating or repeating the same footage or otherwise killing time, but they’re also in a difficult situation: they don’t want to move onto another (perhaps significantly lesser) story and miss a major development, get accused of either insensitivity of bad taste and also just fail to inform people about the biggest story of the day. But there comes a time as a viewer when you just need to turn it off and do something else because there’s nothing new happening and you can always find out what you missed later.
Possibly. I’ve only been following Boston since Bill Rodgers was the MAN, and have only run Chicago myself.
chappachula expressed my feeling succinctly. Less that 5 minutes of radio and internet has given me all the facts I needed/wanted - and I’d suggest just about all of the facts that have been available to this point. I can get another status with a couple more minutes tonight or tomorrow.
There’s all kids of ugly shit happening all over the world. Each of us is free to decide how much of our time and emotions we direct towards it. I’m sure I am being uncharitable towards many, but I always suspect many people watch such coverage out of a sense of voyeurism, desiring to be shocked and scared, and to feel as tho sitting on their couch watching TV makes them a part of something dramatic.
I was flipping through a gallery at my local newspaper’s website (and no, the Post is not my local newspaper) and right in the middle of tons of totally fine pictures, some with some blood in them, is a photo of a guy with his leg blown off and the bones of his lower leg hanging out. No warning or anything. (In the caption it said “Graphic content”. No shit, Sherlock.) I actually complained to the newspaper, which is not the sort of thing I normally do. That was so not okay.
The news coverage is as good as its going to get. Until the apocalypse we will have this kind of 24 news coverage. Facts dribbling in. Rumors reported as rumors that take on a life of their own. Rumors reported as fact. A parade of talking heads spewing opinion as if they have any clue of what is going on. Enough inaccuracies to give Alex Jones material for the next 5 years. Business as usual.
But I don’t think the significance of the event is all that big of a deal. Folk got all excited about Sandy Hook and Aurora - and what can be more mundane than attending school or going to a movie?
Ugly shit happens some place all the time. The vast majority of us are fortunate not to be there when it does. What risks are we willing to take as opposed to giving up which freedoms? But think of the number of crowds you have been in - malls, amusement parks, parades, sporting events, commuter stations… I’m amazed there have not been more incidents of violence in such situations. And I prefer not to ecourage in myself a vicarious sense of danger. Just my personal choice.
Preach it! This is EXACTLY how I feel. My God; I saw many headlines today of the variety: “[Insert Celebrity Name] mourns Boston Marathon Tragedy!”
WTF? Is there any normal person in the US that DOESN’T mourn for this terrible event? Between stupid shit like that, and interviews that are just a waste of time… It makes me want to go back to newspapers. Edited content, limited space; you only get one update per day.
I turned on the TV right before 6:00 last night and saw all I needed to see in 5 minutes. Videos of the explosions, the timeline of what happened, etc. They run this stuff into the ground. Call me when they have some suspects or more details.
In the first hour I heard that there were 6 confirmed dead. That was incorrect (or is it? I don’t know who to believe.) Worse, it was a reporter repeating misinformation merely for the sake of being first. A few hours later I heard a reporter say “there is a rumor …”. Spreading misinformation is the negative of reporting.
I understand that it’s every reporter’s dream to get the scoop but by time there are actual facts available they will have all wondered off to some new, still shiny story. Right now we are all just rubbernecking and entertaining the guy who did this.
The only complaint that I had was with the anchor on the early TV coverage (CBS, I think). They were showing the footage of the first blast over and over and there’s a runner that staggers and falls after the first blast. The anchor kept referring to the runner as being knocked down by the concussion of the blast but it looked pretty clear to me that he was struck by something. First, if it was from the shock wave of the blast he would have gone right down, not stagger and drop. Second, none of the other runners near him went down.
It was like once the anchor said the guy was blown down by the blast it was stuck in his brain.
It just occured to me that maybe the runner’s ears were damaged by the blast and he lost his equilibrium, but still, that’s not the same as being blown off your feet by the explosion.
When you are looking for information and the 24/7 news channels are your main source of news, that’s what you watch. Some information dribbled in; I also spent a lot of time on Facebook and email getting updates from friends until I tracked down everyone I knew. I couldn’t turn off the news and wait for information quietly.
But there were some new facts coming in during the day. Learning how to contact people, where the wounded were taken, what was closing down, how runners were getting out of the city; that was all useful information that came in over the afternoon.
I can’t argue with the guy that it happened to, I guess. Seems odd that none of the others near him had the same reaction. Thanks for setting me straight.
The only big complaint I had with my local news coverage is their constant need to make all news into local news. Whenever something happens anywhere, they tell the story of anyone from the Northwest was in the same city as the incident.
Of course this was an easy one for them, as the 78-year-old runner was from here. Still, every time they report something in this fashion I’m left with the suspicion that if they couldn’t find a local to talk to, they wouldn’t cover the story at all.
As events were unfolding, one of the local Detroit tv news anchors reported rather excitedly that an explosion had occurred at John F. Kennedy Airport. Thankfully, her partner corrected her immediately and said “actually, that’s the JFK Library”.
Sometimes in the race to be the exclusive, first-to-report broadcast, the results are not to be trusted. I’ve learned to take everything in with a grain of skepticism and wait until the immediate excitement is over, when factual information starts to emerge.