Inspired by comments across the Internet about the state of American media.
“How can anyone be wasting time with celebrity gossip while Ukraine is burning?”
“So 300 people in a plane disappeared! So what? An entire class full of young girls were kidnapped and are going to be sold! Where’s your coverage of that?!”
These are, of course, simplified and stereotyped to give you a general reminder of what I’m thinking of.
What would be your “most newsworthy” content? How long would it take to present? How much time would be spent in your home country vs. the rest of the world? Would any particular topics (global warming, corporate power, whatever) be up front and center more often than random daily events? How awesomely depressing would it be?
It would be like the newscast Chicago’s WBBM TV tried 14 years ago, with an emphasis on longer, more in-depth pieces and a quick, no visuals recap of run-of-the mill stuff.
All I know is there would be exactly zero opinions offered by the newscaster. Also, there would be very, very few ‘eyewitness’ reports from Joe Bystander. Just the facts ma’am.
I’d like to see the news media focus more on investigating and reporting on the actual reality of situations rather than just repeating press briefings. Watch the news and notice how many items are essentially just a version of “somebody said this”.
As people who read my posts know, I enjoy celebrity gossip. But I agree it isn’t news. I say leave the celebrity stuff to the appropriate places like People and Entertainment Tonight. Places like Time and the evening news should focus on the real news.
Speaking of which, did anyone else miss the fact that Newsweek is back in print? I was surprised when I saw a copy at a newsstand this week. I checked and apparently another company bought the magazine and put it back in print in March.
Let there be facts.!
There would be NO interviews of ANYBODY except the subject of the specific story. (ie. if a politician is accused of , say, shutting down a bridge during rush hour, there would be only one person on the screen: the politician himself.) There were be NO interviews with “experts” telling us how this will affect the next elections.
Personally, I don’t mind analysis and interviews as long as there’s a genuine attempt at balance and plenty of detail.
The thing that annoys me about American analysis/talk shows is that they generally paint things as black and white, even outside of faux news. Everything is set up as you should be scared by this or you should be outraged by that, there’s no nuance. And everything has a simple solution that we’re not doing. There’s just not enough acknowledgement of the complexity of complex issues.
Other than that, the same as others have desired: more science/tech focus, zero celeb news.
I have no problem with the news calling in experts. If they’re reporting on something like a new scientific discovery or medical breakthrough or Supreme Court decision, then by all means have a scientist or doctor or lawyer explain what it means in layman terms.
I do agree that some people who are presented as experts are nothing of the sort. If I want predictions about the next election, give me somebody like Nate Silver who can present actual data. But I don’t want to see some pundit’s opinions presented as news.
The problem with trying to present balance is a lot of issues don’t have two equal sides.
I don’t want to see, for example, a news report on vaccination that presents the pro-vaccination sources and the anti-vaccinations sources as if they both are equally valid.
A good news source should be able to report “There are two sides to this issue. But one side is wrong.”
I would like less time on recreational grieving (Flight 370, Boston bombing tornado victims, etc) and more time on some of the less savory trends in legislation. Throw the spotlight on ALEC and show the effects of their proposals. Show the impact of voter ID laws and show what a typical disenfranchised voter looks like. Spend some time on climate change. Do a daily story on corporations that pay no taxes.
Oh absolutely. Perhaps my use of the word “balanced” gives the wrong connotations here: I don’t mean give all viewpoints equal time (as though they have equal expert support), and at the end just leave it completely open (as though there is no consensus / direction on this issue).
What I mean is, for example, I wouldn’t take seriously any opinion piece on obamacare that doesn’t mention at least some positives and at least some negatives.
(FTR I am a supporter of ACA, but I acknowledge it’s an ugly compromise in some ways, built that way simply because to go further was not possible)
NPR and BBC, while they do cover music and sport(s), have plenty of boring, in-depth coverage of Nigeria, Ukraine, the India elections, etc. So I imagine it to be like that, but even more. Gaaaah.
Sports is not news - it’s entertainment, so it’s out
Ditto for celebrity and Hollywood fluff.
The weather man would give the forecast for the next 6 hours (or until the next news show), then the forecast thru the next weekend. Then the national weather for any storm fronts. Then, he CAN do the historical data. NEVER any dewpoints or barometric pressures! And never any pics of clouds, sunsets, pets, etc…
More time / focus on local events. Including telling us what events are coming up.
Eye witnesses only if they’re contributing information to the story (and preferably articulate).
Experts only if they contribute pertinent, understandable information. I almost always want more background information (Like the girls were kidnapped in retaliation to that gangs wives and kids being kidnapped!).
Spend some time on follow ups to previous news.
‘Somebody might have said/seen/done’ is NOT news, so don’t report it. Same with opinions.
Traffic updates would focus solely on the 14-mile stretch of minor highway between where I live and work.
CNN and the other 24-hour news outlets would have bankers’ hours. Seriously, everybody just go home. Spend time with your families. Life is too short and there’s not that much to say. If something blows up tonight, the crater will still be smoking tomorrow.
Off the top of my head I can’t think of anything else. Needless to say a news network run by me most likely wouldn’t conform to the so-called “24 hour news cycle” very well!
