Real education

[Pliny]

In a nutshell:

How to report the news

[Jade Dragon]

Sadly, the video is all too true. News for the uneducated. Sound bites rather than real commentary and analysis. Fortunately, the BBC and CBC both have programs that offer more in depth analysis.

[Pliny]

Sadly, the video is all too true. News for the uneducated. Sound bites rather than real commentary and analysis. Fortunately, the BBC and CBC both have programs that offer more in depth analysis.

:lol:

[Michael Hardner]

It's strange that this odd type of theatre has evolved to provide serious framing to information. MacLuhan spoke of the ceremony of the news cast - with the final story being humourous, or human interest so that the audience can be dismissed.

It's got nothing to do with whether the information is factual, important or relevant of course. This is what drives me crazy when I watch Fox - it looks so much like a real news show.

[Pliny]

It's strange that this odd type of theatre has evolved to provide serious framing to information. MacLuhan spoke of the ceremony of the news cast - with the final story being humourous, or human interest so that the audience can be dismissed.

It's got nothing to do with whether the information is factual, important or relevant of course. This is what drives me crazy when I watch Fox - it looks so much like a real news show.

Of course it matters little if information is factual, important or relevant - especially on Fox, which explains it's ratings.

[Smallc]

:lol:

I don't see why that's funny. Even CTV and Global have in-depth programs if you want to watch them.

[Michael Hardner]

Of course it matters little if information is factual, important or relevant - especially on Fox, which explains it's ratings.

Television news has conflicting goals: to report information to the public, and to get people to watch it.

If there are two newscasts reporting a fire, the newscast that makes it out to be worse, and paints the scene in the most dramatic light wins, and thus thrives. Television news has evolved to the point where the news is just true stories.

Watching television news from even 20 years ago, you can see stories that seem well thought-out and informative - and this was already in the 1980s. Watching The Huntley-Brinkley Report, you experience the news as an extremely dry dissemination of events.

But the beauty of an open society such as ours is that these institutions go through a life-cycle of their own. Look at radio, for example. It went from an upstart gadget, to the dominant media of our world, to an aging dinosaur struggling to survive, and through various forms of re-invention.

Television, and especially television news continues to adjust to the expanding number of channels and challenges from the internet. Almost everyone I talk to who follows issues in depth tells me that they use the web as their primary source of information. That means that television's objective of finding the mass audience may be pushing the higher order information consumers elsewhere.

This can only be good for our democracy - it was designed for engagement, not broadcasting.

[Pliny]

This can only be good for our democracy - it was designed for engagement, not broadcasting.

I agree with you here, Michael. It's interactive. it's instant and offers varied points of view and opinion.

We only need to be sure we hone our skills to be able to correctly evaluate all the information.

[Pliny]

I don't see why that's funny. Even CTV and Global have in-depth programs if you want to watch them.

A strict diet of CBC or even the BBC will turn you to mush in short order. I used to watch them and thought I was getting great news coverage and information.

[Smallc]

A strict diet of CBC or even the BBC will turn you to mush in short order. I used to watch them and thought I was getting great news coverage and information.

I don't just watch them though. I still don't know of any better place to get the news than a public broadcaster.

[eyeball]

Television news has conflicting goals: to report information to the public, and to get people to watch it.

If there are two newscasts reporting a fire, the newscast that makes it out to be worse, and paints the scene in the most dramatic light wins, and thus thrives. Television news has evolved to the point where the news is just true stories.

Watching television news from even 20 years ago, you can see stories that seem well thought-out and informative - and this was already in the 1980s. Watching The Huntley-Brinkley Report, you experience the news as an extremely dry dissemination of events.

But the beauty of an open society such as ours is that these institutions go through a life-cycle of their own. Look at radio, for example. It went from an upstart gadget, to the dominant media of our world, to an aging dinosaur struggling to survive, and through various forms of re-invention.

Television, and especially television news continues to adjust to the expanding number of channels and challenges from the internet. Almost everyone I talk to who follows issues in depth tells me that they use the web as their primary source of information. That means that television's objective of finding the mass audience may be pushing the higher order information consumers elsewhere.

This can only be good for our democracy - it was designed for engagement, not broadcasting.

How much of this information is just a link to a mainstream media story? I seem to recall more than a few people remarking that they get a lot of information from this forum for example. Most of the sources in here link to MSM outlets. The Internet, so far it seems, is still largely just another new way of doing the same old thing. The Internet certainly allows for more concentration of news or opinion on specific issues but the more concentrated this info stream is the fewer number of people it appears are looking to it. To me it appears the more in depth a topic is discussed in many threads the fewer participants there are and the links likewise appear to be characterized by less MSM links and more by specific issue sources. This is certainly good for engagement with an issue but I'm not so sure about democracy.

[Pliny]

I don't just watch them though. I still don't know of any better place to get the news than a public broadcaster.

You will certainly be able to know something is happening. They miss some of the news and throw in an editorial point of view for free whether you want it or not.

[Smallc]

And so do all other news outlets. Public broadcasters simply do it less.

[Michael Hardner]

I don't see why that's funny. Even CTV and Global have in-depth programs if you want to watch them.

Check again. Many "in-depth" shows cover certain aspects of news, but don't cover the issues themselves. Often, those shows are about political strategy - the chess game of politics. That's certain interesting, especially for smart people, but it's not relevant.

[Michael Hardner]

How much of this information is just a link to a mainstream media story? I seem to recall more than a few people remarking that they get a lot of information from this forum for example. Most of the sources in here link to MSM outlets. The Internet, so far it seems, is still largely just another new way of doing the same old thing. The Internet certainly allows for more concentration of news or opinion on specific issues but the more concentrated this info stream is the fewer number of people it appears are looking to it. To me it appears the more in depth a topic is discussed in many threads the fewer participants there are and the links likewise appear to be characterized by less MSM links and more by specific issue sources. This is certainly good for engagement with an issue but I'm not so sure about democracy.

There's often a link to a mainstream story anchoring the post but what's important is the interpretation and discussion of the event referenced in that story. That discussion is not the same old thing. When you discuss things in the offline world, you are far more likely to discus with the same people, who often share your views, your geography, your interests.

If something is good for engagement on an issue, then it's good for democracy - how could it be any other way.

As for MSM's importance - which they're always pushing, of course - ask yourself how many of their stories are simply press releases, rewritten and with a dash of analysis added. We could do as well on our own with a government RSS.

[Smallc]

That's certain interesting, especially for smart people, but it's not relevant.

To whom? I would say it's relevant. I'm also not only talking about politics. I'm talking about W5, the fifth estate, and 16:9. I'm also talking about the news magazine that makes up the second half of The National.

[Smallc]

.

Edited January 31, 2010 by Smallc

[Michael Hardner]

To whom? I would say it's relevant. I'm also not only talking about politics. I'm talking about W5, the fifth estate, and 16:9. I'm also talking about the news magazine that makes up the second half of The National.

How the Conservatives plan to frame their message in order to position Stephen Harper as a more caring... yada yada...

These are marketing strategy discussions. It's very intelligent, very strategic, and does have a bearing on who will win the election but... not as important as a myriad of other issues.

[Smallc]

Again, I'm not talking about Power and Politics, Power Play, or Question Period, though those are specific examples that are good at what they do.

[Michael Hardner]

Again, I'm not talking about Power and Politics, Power Play, or Question Period, though those are specific examples that are good at what they do.

Ok. Well, I confess I stopped paying attention to network news shows years ago, so I'll drop in on the CBC newscast and see what they're offering.

The last time I watched The National, it was one of those split-screen chats with Chantel Hebert, Andrew Coyne, and Peter Mansbridge. A bunch of insiders talking about the strategy for selling us stuff..

[Smallc]

That's only on Thursday night that they have the At Issue Panel. They have other stories about Afghanistan and Haiti for example on the other nights.

[Michael Hardner]

That's only on Thursday night that they have the At Issue Panel. They have other stories about Afghanistan and Haiti for example on the other nights.

Why do I need to see a story about Haiti ?

[Smallc]

Because we don't live in a vacuum. Because what Canada does around the world is important.

[Smallc]

Also, those were simply examples. They may do an in depth story about the newest medical research, or some kind of event.

[Michael Hardner]

Because we don't live in a vacuum. Because what Canada does around the world is important.

I don't need to know anything beyond the fact that there's a horrible disaster and what we're doing about it. Most of what I see today is just a horrible reality show.