Showing posts with label broadcast journalism. Show all posts
Showing posts with label broadcast journalism. Show all posts

Friday, March 18, 2011

TV News

I really can't adquately express my disdain for network TV news. Before working at a newspaper, I thought it was just pointless fluff that existed as a relic from a previous time. At best, it was mindnumbing, and at worst it made (usually middle aged) people mistakenly think they are informed.

But since working for a newspaper I've seen an even worse side of the TV news business. After a recent rape hearing, camera's chased down the victim and stuck lights and lenses in her face. They literally chased her and her family into an elevator, despite the fact that new organizations pretty much all have a policy against revealing the identity of sex crime victims.

Earlier this week, I also saw a man get some tragic news (possibly that a family member died in a fire, though I was out of earshot). The man nearly collapsed on the ground with sorrow, and was sobbing uncontrollably. And of course, a TV camera man ran over with a huge light and got in the guy's face.

Of course, not every TV camera man is bad (I knew a cool one not too long ago), but I can't say I've ever seen a network news broadcast that wasn't pointless. And now, I can add insensitivity to the idiotic things TV news does.

(I should mention though that I'm talking exclusively about network affiliates of ABC, NBC, Fox, etc. not CNN and MSNBC.)

Friday, October 9, 2009

Broadcast Journalism is a Joke

If you have a Netflix subscription you may have noticed the recent ad on the envelop for CNN’s HLN.  The ad features headshots of three women—Jane Velez-Mitchell, Nancy Grace, and Joy Behar—with information about their respective shows.  As ads go, it’s an unremarkable bit of information that probably won’t prompt many Netflix users to tune into CNN.

 

What is remarkable, however, is that the ad it looks like it should be plugging a movie parody of broadcast journalism, rather than the real thing.  Most obviously, all the women are wearing dramatic makeup and have huge hair.  If style is admittedly a matter of personal taste, I’d at least expect news anchors to go with something that doesn’t look like a fashion disaster from 1995.  If that wasn’t enough, the photos of the women have actually been heavily airbrushed and doctored.  If there was a man in the midst of these pictures we could compare the doctoring between genders and perhaps come to a conclusion about the media’s biased portrayal of women.  That isn’t the case, however, and instead the pictures look like glamour shots of washed up 1970’s porn stars.

 

Compounding the awful headshots is the ad’s general failure to establish a serious aesthetic through its design choices.  For example, the bold, sans serif font along the top is a little too bold.  It’s also too “tall” as a font and gives the impression that the words are begins screamed, rather than simply asserted.  Likewise, the logo for Jane’s show, “Issues with Jane Velez-Mitchell,” looks like its advertising NASCAR, not news.  Nancy Grace and Joy Behar’s respective fonts aren’t any better and convey a “daytime talk show” aesthetic rather than an evening news program.  As I look over the ad I’m finally struck by the fact that even the worst visual assignment I ever received as a teacher of rhetoric was more successful. 

 

While the ad is annoying, the real problem is that it serves as a kind of diagnostic on the state of TV news.  The programs it advertises begin at 7 PM and end at 10 PM; that’s primetime when CNN should have its highest ratings.  Accordingly, it would make sense that CNN would air its most important, serious material during that time.  Instead, I can only assume from this ad that CNN airs a lightweight combination of opinion editorializing and infotainment. 

 

Consequently, culpability for this absurdly ineffective ad does not lie solely with the women it depicts nor the inept graphic designers who put it together.  Instead, the entire profession of broadcast journalism should be blamed.  The ad suggests that “news” really isn’t the focus of the news.

 

While that’s all fine (after all, networks do have to get ratings), it seems odd that TV news has continued its march toward entertainment when real journalism in newspapers, on the radio, or online, is literally collapsing all around us.  Some of the country’s oldest and most venerable newspapers have folded this year, and there are tens of thousands fewer reporters now than before the recession.  That means that there are fewer outlets for people to read legitimate journalism.  If TV news like the kind on my Netflix envelop can be written off as a joke (which I believe it absolutely can), that means that there is simply less journalism out there and people are less informed. 

 

Obviously the news world is changing right now, but it’s unfortunate that in that environment CNN is either incapable or unwilling to advertise serious reporting.  There are many people in this country that would like to be informed about world events (and who need to be informed), but if this recent Netflix ad proves anything it’s that TV has completely failed as a part of the fourth estate.