I get that pandas are endangered and worthy of being saved. But that wasn't the point of any of the news stories: not a single one of them mentioned pandas in the wild, pandas as an endangered species, pandas as a barometer species or anything like. The focus was totally & exclusively this one cub at the National Zoo and that it died. Nothing else was deemed relevant or pertinent by the media. All opportunity for a bigger, more useful educational 30 second spot was ignored.
Because it was not even a half-story, it was worse than no story at all, IMHO.
I listen to Diane Rehm's program a great deal, although I usually turn it off when she starts taking calls from the public: too many people have a tendency to ramble, to be utterly unfocused and to spew uninformed rumours, and it drives me nuts. If I'm going to take the time to call into a national radio program, I'm going to concisely speak my piece as clearly as possible and try to be at least half-informed before dialing. Diane keeps most people in line but every call-in show on the radio --NPR and otherwise-- tend to suffer the same problem. Thank god for podcasts: I can skip over the weak portions while keeping the important parts.
Re: Pandas ,there is a bigger picture even if the media did not present it well
Date: 2012-10-20 10:44 pm (UTC)Because it was not even a half-story, it was worse than no story at all, IMHO.
I listen to Diane Rehm's program a great deal, although I usually turn it off when she starts taking calls from the public: too many people have a tendency to ramble, to be utterly unfocused and to spew uninformed rumours, and it drives me nuts. If I'm going to take the time to call into a national radio program, I'm going to concisely speak my piece as clearly as possible and try to be at least half-informed before dialing. Diane keeps most people in line but every call-in show on the radio --NPR and otherwise-- tend to suffer the same problem. Thank god for podcasts: I can skip over the weak portions while keeping the important parts.