Comments on: Regarding local television “news”

By: Erich Vieth

Erich Vieth — Tue, 13 Jun 2006 18:19:39 +0000

“What I would consider a far worse display of citizenship is when a person chooses to not watch any news because after all, that there stuff don’t pertain to them…that’s other people’s business.”

Darlene: Yes, I might have overstated my case against the local news. It’s not total rubbish. The local news can and does occasionally provide a valuable service to the community. But such a price to pay! I suspect that if you aired only the valuable portions of the local newscasts, it would amount to a 2 or 3 minute news show. I would be tempted to watch that.* But I don’t want to watch all of the crud that comes with it. And I cringe when I think of all the people who believe that they are well-informed because they watch the local news. It’s a logical fallacy: Just because local news has SOME worthy news does not mean that it contains the “minimum daily requirement” of worthy news.

I facetiously offer this possible solution: Have two local broadcasts every night. The first one is 3 minutes long and it presents information that truly alerts us to important community issues and provides informtion that helps us to be better citizens. The second broadcast should not be called “news.” Call it The Entertainment Gossip/Sports Clips/Car Crash/Shootings Report. You know, just truth in labeling. Then, if you only watch the second of these broadcasts (or even if you watch both), you won’t be so easily deluded that you are a well-informed citizen who is prepared to vote in the next election.

*A bit of math as a side note: What if you watched 27 minutes of useless gossip/sports/shooting scenes (this also includes LOTS of commercials) every night for one year. That’s 9,855 minutes of wasted time. That’s 164 hours. That’s 20 workdays. Ergo, you can give yourself the equivalent of FOUR weeks of vacation every year by foregoing the mostly useless local newscast. If I were the Emporor of the United States, I’d make those broadcasters post that disclaimer at the beginning of every newscast. That might cause them to start covering important issues.

Then again–if the audience dropped away when important topics were covered, THAT would be a symptom of an even bigger problem, eh?

By: Sujay

Sujay — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:54:01 +0000

Strangely enough, this is a major problem in our country too. Me being a media student, this is the most addressed issue in our college. We do not have ‘local news’ here, but all the national news networks are getting quite shockingly commercialized, and the mad rush for TRPs is prompting many networks to unapologetically sell out. It’s almost become a rule to have a celebrity interviewed on a ‘news’ show here, and scandals involving celebrities are alloted hours of ’special reports’.
Another big draw for the TRPs are the soapy ’sting operations’. Reporters pretending to do social justice come out with the most lurid hidden camera sting operations. And many of these feature celebrities too! Recently, a news channel (rightly) came under fire for a shameless ’sex scandal’ expose, where in they disguised their reporters as prostitutes and sent them to celebrities to see which of them would bite the bait. One actor (often known to rape women on screen) bit the bait, and was humiliated, but it is a shame that such networks consider exposing the sex lives of movie stars to service to society.

By: Erika Price

Erika Price — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 17:15:52 +0000

Darlene, at least the apathetics who don’t watch any news at all realize how little they know or care about issues of importance. Usually those types don’t vote, and don’t engage in any kind of activism or ever change their routines at all. But the local news watchers think they have a handle on the situations around them, and use the suggestions of the news to decide their votes, their political positions, and even their live choices.

The y2k paranoia comes to mind. Fed the looming threat of technological failure and anarchy, people ignored the data and tests concluding that y2k would not cause a problem, and flocked to big box retailers to buy lifetime supplies of water and canned goods and superfluous amounts of duct tape.

As for the “necessity” of local news in weather forcasts, I also have to disagree. I don’t understand why someone would sit through an hour of formulaic rubbish for a piece of information they could find in the paper, or even better, on the internet, in a matter of seconds. And most of the internet sources of weather forcasts have more comprehensive information anyway.

But what you have to say, Darlene, does give another insight into why people watch the local news. Though not necessarily accurate, at least local news acknowledges local issues- coverage that the average person can get nowhere else. I know I relied on local radio newscasts during the blackouts a few years ago.

By: Darlene

Darlene — Mon, 12 Jun 2006 16:32:16 +0000

Our local news is primarily needed for weather updates, so largely that the competition bases its popularity with the community on who gets out the broadcasts first, or who has the most updated Doppler equipment…Which in all fairness, is EXTREMELY needed. (Being in hurricane alley…yes, Katrina and Rita hit here) We also get our news about neighbors who have been in tragic car accident….Which is also needed so that we, as local citizens, can do what’s right and reach out to our neighbors. This is also true for when a fellow “local citizen” has a house fire, and a lot of us fellow citizens will reach out and bring goods to the nearest local store that’s accepting for the misplaced family. I may be somewhat biased because I did an internship for CBS….LOCALLY. I do remember when there were sporadic cases of encephalitis breaking out from horses, and when West Nile Virus started spreading out…yet again, locally. Not many “worldly” news stations were telling the public about these until it had become so widespread that it had no choice. All in all, what I am really trying to say, that yes, amongst all the “popcorn” telecasts, and meaningless bumble-jumble, there are also positive aspects to watching local news (In some cities…mine especially). What I would consider a far worse display of citizenship is when a person chooses to not watch any news because after all, that there stuff don’t pertain to them…that’s other people’s business.