I promised myself that I would not return to this thread. I’ve got more to do right now than to try to set a few records straight. (And I’d like to say a great, big THANKS to the supportive posters here.)
But I am tired. Really tired, dispirited and really, really, REALLY cranky. And those are the times that, for some bizarre reason I’ve never been able to figure out, I tend to tilt at impossible windmills when I should be escaping in the other direction. So please forgive me if I don’t make a whole lot of sense at this point. And please excuse what will probably prove to be a long post.
Velvet and others, I can – as I’ve said before – intellectually understand where you are coming from. But please, and while I hate cliches, this one is apt: Don’t attack the messenger just because you don’t like the message.
A couple of factual points: Media outlets are sharing footage and reports. Much of what you see on CNN, Fox, the major broadcast networks and other outlets is pool footage. It’s generally provided by the local stations in New York, though in this case much of it has come from your average folks out doing the tourist thing on what turned out to be the wrong morning. That is not to say that each of these national/international networks do not have their own reporters and camera people in place; they do – that’s WHY they are national/international networks. (Did you know that the only Western TV journalist in Afganistan is a CNN reporter? I don’t know about you, but I’m damned glad that he is there.)
I don’t know much about how TV news operates, but I do know THAT much.
Newspapers work virtually the same way. Most of the “local” papers are making use of wire services to cover this tragedy; the wires may pick up stories and photos from freelancers who just happened to be on-scene, from papers that are close enough to staff it, from those unfortunate tourists, and from the major national/international papers that have the resources to cover it because THEY ARE national/international papers: The New York Times, the Washington Post, Wall St. Journal and my own.
Each media outlet chooses the footage/stories that it elects to run. If you’re seeing the same images over and over, it’s because – for once – most people in the media agree on just what is news.
I may not agree with the choices. I may, in fact, think that it was a little silly of one of the local network TV affiliates out here to send a reporter by car to New York while all the planes were grounded. But I simply don’t watch his reports or read the stories that I think are trivial. I’ve even worked to have a couple of stories at my paper “killed” because I felt they were out of place in the scope of this tragedy.
As for your money-making contention, again, please don’t confuse news with network TV. Yes, a network wants to make money; its shareholders rather like that. A news division really doesn’t give a damn about the bottom line. The same with newspapers. My own paper, for example, has been spending millions more on covering this horrible attack than it could ever hope to recoup. Plus, the corporation has set up a $25-million matching aid fund; they’ve guaranteed that that’s the minimum they’ll deliver.
Yeah. We’re all in it for the money.
Ah. Now for that “we’re all in it for the awards” point. If you honestly, deeply in your soul feel that way, then you are so terribly jaded about my profession that nothing I could possibly say could sway you.
But I will tell you this: I was trapped in my building during the Los Angeles riots. Several of my colleagues and I were herded into the basement by security guards and had the door locked behind us while a mob circled the block and tried to set the place on fire … and you know, by damned, I was thinking to myself the whole time: Heck yeah, I’ma gonna gets me one of them Pulitzers!
PLEASE.
I was trying to figure out what the HELL was going on in my city. TO my city. Why the world had suddenly gone utterly, completely mad. And I had to figure out a way to help my reporters explain that to our readers. Did we win a Pulizer? Yup. We also won one for covering the Northridge Earthquake. And we sure were salivating over documenting all that death and destruction.
Sorry for the sarcasm. But it truly, deeply bothers me that you would have so little understanding of our jobs and feel the need to be so harsh toward those of us who do a job you don’t understand. I probably shouldn’t let it bother me, but I do; I hope that pleases you.
To put it in relative terms, I’ve never ridden a dressage test; never done a three-day event; never done an endurance ride. But that does not mean I cannot appreciate the effort, hardiness, courage and dedication to do any of those pursuits well.
Yes, covering the news is my job. I’m good at it. Some days, I’m better than good; I’d like to think a few of those days have been during the last godawful week. I could have done something else with my life, but I doubt I would have been as good at it. Journalists, like everyone else, tend to gravitate toward the professions that will make the most use of their talents.
Finally – and yes, I know that this post is reaching novel-length proportions – it probably won’t matter to you, but this catastrophe is on very channel in pretty much every country that doesn’t have government-controlled television. It’s in every newspaper. My cable company carries BBC news and we’re all they’re talking about; it carries four Mexico stations, and we’re “it” on them, too. France, Germany, Italy – pretty much everywhere in Europe, South America, Australia, Canada, wherever, and they’re seeing the same footage you are.
It’s news. It’s history. It’s US, for God’s sake.
Frankly, I can’t help but feel that you realize that you’ve struck a nerve with your posts on this thread. That skewering people – and getting a rise out of them – somehow pleases you. If that’s the case, might I suggest that you’ve missed your calling and should have been a commentator.
Or perhaps you already are.
Bulletin Board Goddess
I’m shocked, too!
