A Little Help for the News Media

[bjarvis]

Dear News Media:

I know it's tough trying to keep an audience's attention these days, what with all of us trying to either find a job or hold one down. It's brutal having to return 5,000% returns every calendar quarter because shareholders need to make their yacht payments. Life is tough when the world just doesn't offer you enough celebrity trials to provide hours of no-cost talking head discussion over whether the plaintiff's choice of white or whole wheat toast for breakfast will affect the jury selection process. Nevertheless, please try to keep up.

Here's a few small tips to help you in the editorial room:

• Enough about zoo animals in Ohio. Seriously, only the 5,000 residents of Zanesville cared and even they weren't affected since the critters didn't get near town. The other seven billion people on the planet aren't in Zanesville: we don't care. If you think Zanesville is your dream market, then I have some collateralized debt obligations to sell you.
  
• The iPhone 4s. Yes, we know it exists, your job is now done. You can let go now. Just step away from the topic. St Jobs is dead so he's not going to give you a freebie phone to reward you for your sucking up to his last gadget.
  
• Lindsay Lohan. Please, she was never news. Not the first ten times she went into rehab, not the eleventh. Not when she was caught shoplifting. Not when she broke probation yet again. Want a news story? Do an in-depth news investigation into either (a) why the California justice system keeps letting her off, or (b) why the media thinks she's relevant. (Hint: I would read (a).)
  
• The trial of Dr Conrad Murray, Michael Jackson's former personal physician. Yup, he's a bad doctor. But you know what? A single line mentioning the jury's decision on page 5 would be just fine. Play-by-play and color commentary of every sneeze in the courtroom? Not interested.
  
• The wedding of John Edwards' daughter. Did you get an invitation? Nope, me neither. Send her a card and move on.

Bonus round: Here's a few simple guidelines to help in future.

• If it involves the economy or my career prospects or affects my mortgage, I care.
  
• If it involves national security or world stability, I care.
  
• If it strengthens democracy or democratic institutions by reporting on the working, successes or failures of such, I care.
  
• If it provides insight into humanity, our place in the universe and/or our ability to survive and improve ourselves within it, I care.

Everything else is just fluff.

Comments

[weekilter.livejournal.com]

Dear Brian, either you've been like Rip Van Winkle and have been asleep for all these years or you have not noticed how culturally shallow the world around us is. If you don't wish to learn of the exploits of Lindsey Lohan, the latest iThing, Jacko's doctor or the latest rash of indignities done to or by the Maddoff clan you'll need to just shut off the tele and go back to playing solitaire on your PC.

[allanh.livejournal.com]

And people wonder why I don't watch TV. The only "live" media source I consume is news/talk radio...90% of that news and not talk.

I'm amused because none of the topics you mentioned (all which I'm also sick of hearing about, BTW) rated more than a single small paragraph in the Economist, which I download each week to my iPad for easy reading.

I love my iPad. I love the Economist. Not only do they seem to write about news stories I find relevant, but they're incredibly bitchy in that dry manner that only the British can manage. Fabulous.

I skim through Time because Randy subscribes, but it's succumbed to the "dumming down" [sic] of news stories and topics. I do find it occasionally useful.

EDIT: Actually, I will occasional watch clips from Rachel Maddow (you GO, girl!), Bill Maher, or Jon Stewart. Randy watches them all religiously, and either I'll stop and watch briefly as I pass through his man-cave/tv room, or I'll see something interesting someone embeds here or on Bruizr.

[theoctothorpe.livejournal.com]

If you subscribe to the Economist (at least the print edition, donnow about e-pubs), you have access to their podcast, which includes people reading THE ENTIRE Economist (ie unabridged)!

It's pretty epic, and it's often easier to read the stories, but I enjoy listening to it when walking to work, or where reading is ill-advised.

[vasilatos]

just don't show the qaddafi killing again, PLEASE

[rsc.livejournal.com]

OK, I'm going to be something of a curmudgeon here (what else is new?), and probably tread on some sensibilities.

Yes, the daily newspaper has rather too much coverage of irrelevancies such as described here (in my case, most notably the Jackson Doctor stuff). But turning the page isn't terribly difficult. And my local newspaper, for all its faults, does report some real news on the topics you suggest.

On the other hand, I have little sympathy for people who complain about the irrelevancy or TV broadcast news. Nobody's making you watch it. You already know that on the rare occasions that it tells you anything of interest, it's going to make you sit through many minutes of crap to get there. So don't.

[bjarvis.livejournal.com]

And I don't watch it: I turn it off or skip to something informative.

My problem with it is that the larger population is mislead to believe that there really isn't anything else happening on the planet. By choosing to broadcast the trial of the century of the week instead of real events of consequence, the population is discouraged from thinking about problems in our democracy, wars overseas, people dying of preventable diseases, and other unpleasant realities. And that's the greatest hope for anyone who is benefiting from such evil.

IMHO, feel good stories or bland pap 24x7 isn't benign: it's a steady corrosion of the mind.

There are no slow news days, only lazy news days.