grief porn
while the events in boston are terrible, the degree to which television networks are bombarding the viewership with "coverage" is ridiculous, shameless and, largely, pointless.
it's grief porn.
wall-to-wall coverage, news specials, catchy title graphics -- it's not about bringing the public the news, it's about all these stations jockeying for ratings. it's about which reporter can snag the most heartbreaking interview, which channel can secure the most shocking footage, which network can find the most experts to offer the most speculation that might turn out to be somewhat accurate when and if the actual truth comes out. it's about quantity, not quality. they will run the story into the ground, and air the same footage over and over and over and over again, until it slowly loses its meaning and impact.
you just know that, right now, every network is fighting for the right to the first interview with the runner whose son was killed, and whose wife was badly injured. not because he has an amazing story to tell, but because it's a tragic one, and the networks believe that viewers want to see this poor grieving man weep while he talks about the death of his young son. do they really think we don't KNOW he's grieving? that he's in pain? that this was likely the worst day of his life? do we really need to hear him have to say it?
it's about competition, and who gets the exclusive FIRST, nothing more. and, with each passing tragedy in america, and sometimes elsewhere in the world (the tsunami in japan, for example), it becomes more obscene. it's like the worst kind of feeding frenzy.
do we need hour-long primetime specials on "the boston blow-up" (or whatever your channel of choice opts to call it) – wherein one victim or bystander after another is interviewed about what they saw, heard, felt and did – in order to understand or appreciate the gravity of what happened? no. we don't. or, maybe, some people do, but i don't.
if there's breaking news, then break into programming and share it. if there's an important development -- such as finding the person(s) responsible -- then broadcast it. but please scrap all the talking heads and analysts and rehashing of the same details. please stop shoving a microphone in front of anyone you can find, and pointing your camera at anyone willing to appear on the air.
social media is almost as bad. i don't care what celebrities "tweeted" or how they reacted on a red carpet when they found out. yet it's being reported as news. of COURSE people are going to think the situation is tragic and of COURSE they're going to be supportive -- do we really have to broadcast it? the words "my heart goes out" have lost all meaning. nevermind the atrocities that take place all over the world every single day -- does anyone's heart go out for that suffering? or is it just sympathy for the suffering the media happens to be covering most?
grief porn feeds on itself -- the more attention it gets, the more people want to join in, which leads to more attention, which leads to more grief… and so on. i'm not saying people shouldn't be saddened and alarmed by what happened (they should), i'm not saying it's not a horrible thing (it is) and i'm not saying we don't want important news updates (we do).
put the public spectacle being created by the television media is morphing into something else altogether.
and not something good, IMO.
2 comments:
Your words echo Tom's exactly.
I think, on the other hand, that the audience is so used to wall to wall coverage of each horrific event, that people would see the lack of such as uncaring and cold.
I want to hear about new events in the case. I want to see a photo of those who lost their life, but once is enough to break my heart.
The consequence of a First Amendment, free press, and technology is the kind of press coverage that you complain about. We have the right to turn off whatever machine is broadcasting. And when we've had enough, we do.
Post a Comment