While watching the 6:30 news on ABC, it became blatantly clear that the stories were not ordered by their importance. I did not watch the entire newscast, but I watched enough until you could tell that the stories were out of oder of importance. For example, at one point they segwayed from a story about a man being stabbed in Bed-Stuy, to the weather, to the story about the collapse of the Cowboys training camp tent. Also, they had a doctor on the show to discuss the swine flu and the recent recall of all Hydroxycut fat burners. I assumed that the doctor would address the swine flu first, but in fact he talked about hydroxycut. As a matter of fact, he talked for a longer time about the fat burner than he did about the swine flu.
Even though I feel that the Hydroxycut recall was important and affected a lot of people, I think the swine flu should have been the main topic of the discussion. Of course in the news there was also a little bit of celebrity news (Chris Brown and Rihanna, how Robin Williams is recovering from heart problems), which I feel is unnecessary. That is what shows like TMZ are for. Also, it is obvious that the news is not based on the order of importance, but why should it be? As long as the stories are being reported does it matter which comes first or second or third?
Monday, May 4, 2009
Sunday, May 3, 2009
Fox News vs. CNN
It is very rare that I watch the news on TV. On the occasions that I do I find myslelf watching Fox News. For the purpose of this post I flipped between Fox News and CNN over the course of an hour. There were a few stories that both stations covered. One of these was the swine flu outbreak, as this is obviously a very important event. Fox News did not spend as much time covering the swine flu as CNN. CNN had doctors reporting on the symptoms and cures for people who are badly infected. Fox simply stated how the swine flu is not as serious as was originally thought, because cases of the outbreak in Mexico are tapering off.
Fox and CNN both breifly mentioned the collapsing of the Dallas Cowboys training camp tent. One story that I noticed that CNN did not cover that Fox did was how Citibank needs to raise about $10 million dollars in order to stay afloat. Both stations also covered President Obamas first 100 days in office. Fox news said that Obama should not blame Bush for the current economic situation, while CNN showed Obamas agenda for the week and ignored the economic crisis. Comparing the channels showed that they represented both sides of the spectrum. Fox News is without a doubt partisan and CNN leans more to the left. I think that it is very very hard to have objective coverage and there will always be some partisanship.
Fox and CNN both breifly mentioned the collapsing of the Dallas Cowboys training camp tent. One story that I noticed that CNN did not cover that Fox did was how Citibank needs to raise about $10 million dollars in order to stay afloat. Both stations also covered President Obamas first 100 days in office. Fox news said that Obama should not blame Bush for the current economic situation, while CNN showed Obamas agenda for the week and ignored the economic crisis. Comparing the channels showed that they represented both sides of the spectrum. Fox News is without a doubt partisan and CNN leans more to the left. I think that it is very very hard to have objective coverage and there will always be some partisanship.
Local News: Informative? Yes. Entertaining? No.
While watching the local CBS news at 5:00, it was very apparent that it was not entertaining. There was no comedy and no jokes, but why should there be? People do not watch the local news to be entertained, they watch it to be informed. The problem is unless you actually want to watch the news, there is no incentive for you to do so. It is dry, straight to the point news thats only purpose is to inform the public, not entertain them.
There were a few political stories, but not as many as the general news stories. The political stories were sprinkled throughout the broadcast. I feel that the news can only have so much political news, because only so much happens in a day that the public needs to know about. If people want to hear solely political news, then they should watch CNN or MSNBC. I feel that the local news should be general news about a variety of topics.
There were a few political stories, but not as many as the general news stories. The political stories were sprinkled throughout the broadcast. I feel that the news can only have so much political news, because only so much happens in a day that the public needs to know about. If people want to hear solely political news, then they should watch CNN or MSNBC. I feel that the local news should be general news about a variety of topics.
Politics in the News: Jon Stewart Takes on Network News..And Wins?
Anyone who has an interest in politics has no doubt heard of Jon Stewart, and probably has seen his show, The Daily Show. The Daily Show is a comedic talk show that is based on politics and news. He single handedly hosts the show does a very good job. As is to be expected, the main viewers of the show are todays youth. I feel that this is very important, because it means that the youths are getting some political information. I know for a fact that many students would rather watch the Daily Show than MSNBC. I am one of these students. I cannot stand to listen to long political shows based on hard facts. The comedic style the Stewart uses to put forth political issues and events makes it extremely entertaining to watch.
Although it is good that this show can get the youth involved, I think that many of them, including myself, are using it as a crutch. The Daily Show probably consists of 80% of the news I hear about politics. This is not good. I think that to be fully educated, you must try to hear every side of the story, and watching network news can help you do that. I feel that watching network news at a random time does guarentee that you will hear political pieces, but watchin the Daily Show does. This is another positive to the Daily Show. I am trying to start using the Daily Show as a segway to watching network news more, but for me, as of now, Jon Stewart has the upper hand.
Although it is good that this show can get the youth involved, I think that many of them, including myself, are using it as a crutch. The Daily Show probably consists of 80% of the news I hear about politics. This is not good. I think that to be fully educated, you must try to hear every side of the story, and watching network news can help you do that. I feel that watching network news at a random time does guarentee that you will hear political pieces, but watchin the Daily Show does. This is another positive to the Daily Show. I am trying to start using the Daily Show as a segway to watching network news more, but for me, as of now, Jon Stewart has the upper hand.
Sean Hannity vs. Alan Keyes
Hannity and Colmes was a show that ran on Fox News from October 1996 to January 2009. The show was hosted by Hannity, a conservative, and Colmes, a liberal. On the particular episode that I posted above, the hosts are interviewing Alan Keyes, who ran for President of the United States in 2008. First Colmes asks him a few questions and allows Keyes to respong. Keyes is answering the questions to a certain point, but is avoiding answering parts of the question. Colmes does not make a big deal about this and moves onto the next question.
When it is Hannitys turn to ask the questions, he does not let Keyes off the hook at all. He keeps drilling into Keyes and you can see that it is making him uncomfortable. Hannity seems that he is not the kind of person that you want interviewing you. He kept interupting Keyes and giving him a hard time with everything that he said. After watching more clips of the show it became obvious that Hannity can be pretty stuborn and thick headed, while Colmes is more even tempered. It is easy to see why Colmes left the show last year. I don't know how he lasted this long. The show is now simply entitled 'Hannity'.
Limbaugh and the Feminazis
In one of Rush Limbaughs radio shows the topic of feminism was brought about. Limbaugh, who is very critical of feminism, had nothing nice to say. He used the funny but derrogatory term 'feminazi' when referring to radical feminists. He said that to these 'feminazis' the most important thing in life "is ensuring that as many abortions as possible occur": a phrase that he has used before. He also restates a previous statement he had used before, when he said that feminism was only brought about so that ugly woman could have easier access to the mainstream of society.
It was made clear in the broadcast that he used these terms before and it had brought a lot criticism, but he did not care. I think that what he was saying was very funny, but that is because I am not a feminist. The segment on feminism lasted about 1o minutes before it segwayed into something else. I had never listened to Limbaugh before and I was surpised at how funny, and suprisingly entertaining it was. But then again thats only because I am not a 'feminazi'.
It was made clear in the broadcast that he used these terms before and it had brought a lot criticism, but he did not care. I think that what he was saying was very funny, but that is because I am not a feminist. The segment on feminism lasted about 1o minutes before it segwayed into something else. I had never listened to Limbaugh before and I was surpised at how funny, and suprisingly entertaining it was. But then again thats only because I am not a 'feminazi'.
USA Today Cover Story
On the cover of USA Today was a story about the swine flu. I noticed that many students have written about this, so I wanted to take this in a different direction. Although the cover story was about the swine flu, there was also an editorial that went with a different abgle on the story, so I wanted to look at that. After reading the article I decided that I wanted to write a letter to the editor:
To the Editor:
“Worldwide flu cases top 700” (article USA Today, 5/2/09), states that “the world still lingers just shy of a full-out pandemic”. The overall tone of the article seems to over estimate the swine flu and magnify its severity. Sure people have died and fallen ill to the swine flu, but the regular flu, which affects people every year, kills many more people than the swine flu has. Why should the swine flu be a major pandemic when the regular flu has proven more deadly in previous years? The article should have attempted to calm people about the ‘pandemic’ and show how it is not as bad as it seems when compared to the regular flu.
Sincerely,
Nico Scerbo
Ramapo College of New Jersey Student
Subscribe to:
Posts (Atom)
