Community >> View Post
·
Post By
Deborah

In Reply To
The Black Guardian

Subj: Re: Replying anyway . . . National News
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 08:48:34 am EST (Viewed 1 times)
Reply Subj: Re: Replying anyway . . . National News
Posted: Wed Jan 09, 2008 at 02:15:24 am EST

Previous Post

> "We get all that" is well and good when, or rather,
> if it's the case. But the fact is, we all too often
> DON'T get all that. Taking politics, for example, we get very little
> solid news, such as where candidates actually stand on issues and
> what their records are. Instead we get sound bites and posturing and
> name calling. Now true, some of the fault for that lies with the
> politicians themselves. But some is the nature of reporting at the
> moment.

Nonsense. We do get all of that, but resources being limited, you may need to dig deeper to get it. No matter how much you have to dig for a story, it's still making the national news. Case in point, I still haven't heard about that cannibal in Texas anywhere but on this message board.

> And as to being inundated with news coverage, again yes and no. For
> every story on the space shuttle, there were five on the astronaut
> love triangle (sorry, *not* news to the degree it was covered). For
> every story on congress voting, there were countless on Brittany,
> Lindsay, or Brad and Angelina.

Eh. Supply and demand. More people are interested in knowing about those things than congressional votes. Look at how many people actually vote. It's only logical that stories more people are interested in will be frontloaded. The stories that aren't frontloaded are still there though.

> > Sorry, I'm a firm believer that all serious crimes are worth
> > national coverage.
>
> I'm not. Thousands upon thousands of people (sad to say) are
> murdered each year. The only reason this one made the news was
> because of the sensational aspect to it. The woman's death was just
> as tragic but not more "serious" (if that distinction makes sense in
> this context) than any of the other murders. But you don't see all
> the rest in the news. Most of the victims (check statistics on news
> stories) that get the most coverage are young white women. Because
> that "plays" better. Same with missing persons.

And I think each one of those thousands should make the national news.
____________________






>
> Nonsense. We do get all of that, but resources being limited, you may need to dig deeper to get it. No matter how much you have to dig for a story, it's still making the national news. Case in point, I still haven't heard about that cannibal in Texas anywhere but on this message board.

"Nonsense"? Have you watched or read the news lately? Precisely because resources *are* limited and a person *does* have to dig for real stories is why such sensationalism like this should *not* be making national news.


> Eh. Supply and demand. More people are interested in knowing about those things than congressional votes. Look at how many people actually vote. It's only logical that stories more people are interested in will be frontloaded. The stories that aren't frontloaded are still there though.

Sometimes the news still gets out there. Sometimes (depending on how badly it's buried) it doesn't.

>
> And I think each one of those thousands should make the national news.

TEHO. I can understand that opinion but I don't share it. There is so much crime that if reporters used the criteria you describe, *nothing* else would be reported. And IMO that would be a bad thing.





Posted with Microsoft Internet Explorer 7 on Windows XP
Alvaro's Comicboards powered by On Topic™ © 2003-2022 Powermad Software
All the content of these boards Copyright © 1996-2022 by Comicboards/TVShowboards. Software Copyright © 2003-2022 Powermad Software