Media Coverage of Crises

[Antilogic]

Wanted to post this in a separate thread so as not to clutter the discussion about the shooting in Ottawa, but I saw this linked on Vox and it made me think:



The American media is (perhaps uniquely and only recently) terrible at covering ongoing crises. The above picture is only one example that illustrates the American media's tendency to sensationalize and fearmonger rather than soberly inform the public about the events in the world. Sometimes we get an endless loop of increasingly hysterical and trivial coverage about a single incident a la a certain plane crash in the Indian Ocean. Sometimes we get insane and factually bogus statements about terrorists infecting themselves with super diseases and illegally crossing borders to. Other times we get endless coverage of some random celebutard's death and funeral. And that's just in a couple years.

So why did this happen and how can we fix it? Or does it really need fixing? Do you think my parenthetical comment is correct?

 

[Tahuti]

We can fix it by banning news media.

 

[warpus]

So why did this happen and how can we fix it?

Fox News is a company that is trying to make money.

CBC is a crown corporation that is trying to report the news (in this particular case).

Sensationalism helps you attract people to your stories and make you more money. Fortunately CBC doesn't have to worry about making money as their #1 priority, because they don't have any shareholders. Their main focus can thus be honest journalism as opposed to half-arsed sensationalist nonsense.

That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between News and News Entertainment. The CBC will provide you with news, while Fox News (and other such networks) will provide you with news entertainment... Much like Greco & Roman wrestling will provide you with wrestling while the WWE offers you sports/wrestling entertainment.

The difference is in the focus. If your focus is on pulling in as much $ as possible, you'll sensationalize everything to hell.. It seems to work. If you're just there to report the news, you'll do the exact opposite.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

Fox News is a company that is trying to make money.

CBC is a crown corporation that is trying to report the news (in this particular case).

Sensationalism helps you attract people to your stories and make you more money. Fortunately CBC doesn't have to worry about making money as their #1 priority, because they don't have any shareholders. Their main focus can thus be honest journalism as opposed to half-arsed sensationalist nonsense.

That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between News and News Entertainment. The CBC will provide you with news, while Fox News (and other such networks) will provide you with news entertainment... Much like Greco & Roman wrestling will provide you with wrestling while the WWE offers you sports/wrestling entertainment.

The difference is in the focus. If your focus is on pulling in as much $ as possible, you'll sensationalize everything to hell.. It seems to work. If you're just there to report the news, you'll do the exact opposite.

When someone gives a clear, concise, and correct answer in the third post it kills the thread. Shame on you.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

When I see Peter Mansbridge on the screen, I know that we're going to get the best possible coverage. He's after a balanced, objective report of what happened, what's happening at the moment, what can be reasonably extrapolated from it, and he's not out to put himself in the limelight. That's the thing about the CBC. Any of the senior journalists there can, and have, served as news anchors. The only muck-racker among them (lately) has been Evan Solomon).

 

[Cutlass]

If it bleeds, it leads. Lazy, cheap, and sensationalist are the defining characteristics of American media.

 

[jackelgull]

Isn't it the defining characteristic of media in general?

 

[Zelig]

Nissan!

 

[classical_hero]

Fox News is a company that is trying to make money.

CBC is a crown corporation that is trying to report the news (in this particular case).

Sensationalism helps you attract people to your stories and make you more money. Fortunately CBC doesn't have to worry about making money as their #1 priority, because they don't have any shareholders. Their main focus can thus be honest journalism as opposed to half-arsed sensationalist nonsense.

That's why I think it's important to draw the distinction between News and News Entertainment. The CBC will provide you with news, while Fox News (and other such networks) will provide you with news entertainment... Much like Greco & Roman wrestling will provide you with wrestling while the WWE offers you sports/wrestling entertainment.

The difference is in the focus. If your focus is on pulling in as much $ as possible, you'll sensationalize everything to hell.. It seems to work. If you're just there to report the news, you'll do the exact opposite.

I like how you brought in Fox News, when the site linked was CNN.

 

[Timsup2nothin]

I like how you brought in Fox News, when the site linked was CNN.

Fox News always comes into conversations like this, because they are the network that defended themselves in court with the 'there is no law that says network news has to tell the truth' defense. Not that any other network is bound by journalistic principles either, but only Fox has made the legal case of it.

 

[warpus]

I like how you brought in Fox News, when the site linked was CNN.

I just actually noticed that myself

Fox News, CNN, in this context they both serve as fine examples of what I was trying to explain. Fox News is usually a lot better at it, I guess I didn't give CNN enough credit and quickly glanced over the picture.

I swear I saw a Fox/CBC side by side one earlier on reddit....

 

[downtown]

I think this problem is more about cable news than it necessarily is "the media" in general. America's TV news coverage is beyond terrible. Lots of their digital, and even print media, is pretty good!

 

[warpus]

TV coverage can be pretty good too though!


Link to video.

 

[Arwon]

How is the Canadian commercial media approaching things?

 

[Evie]

For the report, this is Fox's report:



1. Yep, sensationalist.
2. AND wrong: that picture is of the Quebec Assembly building. Which is, uh, just a slight 400 km away from Ottawa.

 

[JollyRoger]

Has Fox identified the shooter as a (D) yet?

 

[Phrossack]

If the CBC is government-funded, then wouldn't it be biased towards whomever's in charge?

That said, subsidized news seems interesting. For-profit news is in the business of making money and will do and say whatever it can to make more.

 

[Evie]

Given that whoever's in charge now is trying hard to dismantble the CBC...not so much.

 

[Valka D'Ur]

How is the Canadian commercial media approaching things?

I wouldn't know. Did anyone here watch CTV or Global?

 

[warpus]

If the CBC is government-funded, then wouldn't it be biased towards whomever's in charge?

Historically I don't think that's been the case, but I'm not really sure about any past examples of bias..

As a crown corporation, the CBC operates at arm’s length (autonomously) from the government in its day-to-day business. The corporation is governed by the Broadcasting Act of 1991, under a Board of Directors and is directly responsible to Parliament through the Department of Canadian Heritage. General management of the organization is in the hands of a president, who is appointed by the Governor General of Canada in Council, on the advice of the prime minister.

The broadcasting act says this: The Canadian Broadcasting Corporation, as the national public broadcaster, should provide radio and television services incorporating a wide range of programming that informs, enlightens and entertains.

The rest is details. The board answers to parliment, but parliment consists both an upper and a lower house, only the lower which is what we elect. There is also a governor general, and even a viceroy, and a senate. So the CBC board of governors doesn't answer directly to the party in power, but rather all the elected ministers in government, but also all the senators, and a whole bunch of other weird people with fancy titles.

It's the British theory that once everything is confusing enough and looks silly enough, that people just don't even bother with bias. Sometimes it works, sometimes it doesn't.

That said, subsidized news seems interesting

The CBC is actually a lot more than just a news station. They have original programming.. and uhh.. a radio station with good classical music, stuff you won't hear anywhere else on the radio.. I'm going to have to be honest and say that I don't really know that much about them - but they do the news right, so every once in a while I'll check out what Mansbridge has to say. I don't think they do hockey anymore, so I haven't really been watching CBC much lately.

Here is the mandate of the CBC btw, if you're curious. It tells them what they're supposed to be doing.

As a taxpayer I support some of my money going to such a thing. It's not a lot of money and we get stuff like Peter Mansbridge out of it. Peter Mansbridge alone would have been enough, but there's so much more.