...About Stupid Talking Heads

Now that the hype is over after the killing of one and the capture of the other Boston Marathon bombers, the news channels can get back to their regularly scheduled snooze programs. I was one of the quazillion people following the coverage. I would hang with it for about a 1/2 hour at a time. But it didn't take very long for me to get mad... not just miffed; yell-at-the-TV angry. Why? Because I get so tired of the stupid, hoity-toity, know-it-all, hot-air-bag talking heads who ramble incessantly about the same drooling drivel for HOURS! 
In one of my recent blogs - Wait! Just the other day! - we talked about how the media sensationalizes the news events. Now we are discussing how ridiculous they appear when they talk out of their bums about things they know little to nothing about. 

What has happened to TV anymore? Programs are not what they promote themselves to be. Headline News - the 24 hour news source - has about 15 minutes of news, then repeats it over and over. Don't think so? Watch a morning newscast. [It will have to be morning, because after about 11:00, it's all "other" programming - not headlines!] Robin will stumble on a word and make comment about it. The next time that story runs, same stumble, same comment. I used to live on Discovery; not anymore. There is no "discovery" to it anymore. Shows like "How It's Made" don't live there anymore. Now it's "Duck Dynasty" and "Swamp Dumbasses" and "Deadliest Catch" over and over and over. 
TLC, The LEARNING Channel, NOT! It's "Say Yes to the Dress" and "Little People Big World" and "Bridezilla." 
CMT is NOT Country MUSIC Television anymore; it's everything BUT. All of the channels have sold out in a panic, scratching for more viewers. MTV... NOT.   History... NOT!  For example, as I write this, Headline News - the source for news headlines 24 hours a day - is running many, many hours of "Mystery Detectives" one after another. REALLY???? But... I digress! 

Because they are fighting for face-time, the well-known authorities on news say some of the stupidest things. These are some of the actual statements I heard during the broadcasts: 

"We know that he must have had a gun because he did get into a gunfight with authorities." 

"The suspect is alive, which will be important as they try to get information from him." 

[Impacting music and deep voice-over] "This a FoxNews ALERT!" 
[Reporter] "We are still waiting for some information from officials regarding the house to house search being conducted. We've been told nothing for the last few hours." 

[Reporter 1] "We just heard what sounded like 8 or 9 gunshots. (Reporter 2) what did you hear?" 
[Reporter 2] "We just heard what sounded like 8 or 9 gunshots." 

"He exchanged gunfire with them, so he was indeed armed." 

[Reporter] "We're going to talk now with (name), who witnessed the murder of the MIT Policeman. Name, tell us what you saw." 
[Name] "I wasn't there when it happened, I got there about 10 minutes after it happened, and nothing was going on. So I followed some policemen over to (somewhere else)." 

[Police Official] "The homeowner noticed blood on his boat cover, he walked over and looked under the tarp and saw the bloody suspect in the boat." 
[Reporter - seconds later] "It seems that a neighbor or passerby saw blood on the tarp over the boat..." 

You can see how ridiculous this all is. The talking head remarks are equalled, if not surpassed by the foolish speculation about background training, indoctrination, blah, blah, blah.  

The early reports I heard after the bombing said that the 3rd victim's parents did NOT want her name released. "All we know is that she was a graduate student from China."  Someone - apparently not interested in the parent's wishes - decided to release the name. Why? Why weren't the wishes of the parents honored? Why couldn't her friends from school honor that?  I wonder how the parents feel now?  

I get the whole thing about providing the news. I get the whole "ratings wars" stuff. I get the whole "Freedom of the Press" crap. What I don't get is why newsies would rather stay on the air and look stupid, rather than break into programming when there is something intelligent to say. Maybe the need for face time IS the motivator, but I have to wonder... Do these people ever go back and watch themselves? Don't they SEE how stupid they look? 

For many years, when driving down a country road and passing a cemetery, my buddy Ralph has always said, "See that out there? There are a whole buncha people who thought the world couldn't live without them."  I relate that to large, thick, big-city newspapers - "There's a whole lotta news nobody wants to read." And now, I relate that to these mindless talking heads - "There's a whole lotta crap nobody wants hear." 

To me, it is a perfectly applicable example of the old phrase - "It is better to be silent and thought a fool, than to open your mouth and remove all doubt." 



.

...About Media Sensationalism

It has always been accepted that when you tell a fish story, the one that got away was "thiiis big!!"  Well, maybe not THAT big, but it was close!  Also - that girl he saw at the bar was scoping him out BIG TIME! "Man, she wanted me and you could tell it!" Actually, he was standing in front of the bar TV. Yeah, but that's OK. We accept that a story is good if it's a bit outrageous. 
But these days, making stories sound that overblown in the media has become almost criminal; all in the name of viewers. I don't want sensationalism from the people who are supposed to provide the facts. 

The dictionary defines sensationalism as follows: 
sensationalism |senˈsā sh ənlˌizəm|

noun

1 (esp. in journalism) the use of exciting or shocking stories or language at the expense of accuracy, in order to provoke public interest or excitement

During local coverage of the (tragic) Boston Marathon bombing, the NBC affiliate in Mobile did a story of a local who was at the Marathon cheering his wife (I think). The text at the bottom of the screen grabs your attention: "Local man just yards from the bombing." Note that they say "yards." In the interview, the man says he was "a block or so away" from where the explosion occurred. When I say to you that something is "yards away," you expect that to mean somewhere in the area of 10-12-15 feet away. When I say it is "a block or so from here," you get the hint that it's "a little piece away." BUT - the story is not near as exciting if the TV station says "Local man not far from the bombing." Nothing in that phrase makes me want to stop chewing to hear the story. 

In this morning's reporting of the fertilizer plant explosion in West, TX, the reporter is interviewing a local official. He was (apparently) struck by flying debris and has several small cuts on his face and forehead. There is blood trickling down and drying on his head and face. If you or I saw this, we would say, "Here... use this towel to wipe your face and take care of yourself." Oh how foolish I am! The reporter asks one mundane question after another with no regard for the blood, because blood sells better TV! She will probably win some local 'Reporter of the Year' award for her stellar coverage of this tragic event. 

Time after time after time we see this. Whether the local news, national news, the Weather Channel (that Jim Cantore sure can make one hell of a story, can't he?), or an ad for Jim Bob's Furniture Store's Going Out of Business Sale, the more we sensationalize it, the more we grab the viewer by the throat. 

To me, the cause of all of this is 24 hour news &/or weather channels. In the need for ratings and viewers, these 24 hour droolers... er... news anchors will tell any story and sensationalize it to sound newsworthy. If it's not gripping, why would you watch that instead of Dick Van Dyke reruns at 2:30am? 

Talk about 24 hour news drivel - a 2nd grader goes to school with an orange mohawk. The principal (whether right or wrong) says it is distracting to other kids and has the mom come get the child. Why does this make national news? Because the 24 hour newsies need SOMETHING to talk about. That's why we have so many lawsuits - because ANY worthless piece of flesh can call Headline News and get put on the air to support their cause. "We can care about whether or not it's a real news story later... right now, we need the ratings, and Robin needs some hair spray." But... I digress! 

And everybody does this aggrandizing. After yesterday's vote about gun control background checks, the president acts all mad and pouty, the vice-president has his face in his hands, and they are surrounded by the Newtown families and Gabby Gifford. Sensationalism. You and I both know that the president has some staffer who is smart enough to have known what the vote was going to be, and all of the hoopla was staging to make a point with whomever will buy into it. (And by the way... Why the hell were the Newtown families flying around on Air Force One?? Who is paying for THAT partisan waste of money?? You and ME!)    

Now don't take this as an attack on people who work in the media. I know a buncha folks in the media. I was a part of the media for a long time. I am simply saying that we have gotten to the point where we aren't shocked by much anymore. As a result, the news industry must make a larger effort to command our attention. I get that. I just think it's a crying shame that the method to get that attention is to make that fish bigger and bigger everytime we tell the story. Tell me the facts. If I think you tell the facts better than the other channel, I will choose to watch you. 

All my life my father would stop me when I was telling some 'whopper' and say, "Why don't you just be quiet? Nobody wants to hear all that nonsense."  

Now I know exactly what he meant. 

.