|
MM, your comments about what I see as an overreactive media ring true, but Shakran's points are equally valid. I would say that my opinion of the media falls somewhere in between the two.
I grew up in a house where the television was always on the news. I watched the first Gulf War live on CNN. I was probably the most informed fourth grader you could ever imagine. News was everywhere in my house--one newspaper subscription, several newsmagazine subscriptions...if it happened, I knew about it. Would I say I was overexposed? No, not at all.
I think the OJ Simpson trial ruined us, really, and Court TV. Certain cable outlets began focusing on sensational news all of the time, and got ratings. Well, we see the result of that today in the media that now oversensationalizes everything.
I'm careful about where I get my news now for that reason. I read the NYTimes, both the online version and the paper copy. If there's a breaking story, I check their website, Google News, and CNN. I watch the Daily Show and the Colbert Report daily. The only oversensational thing that has slipped through my nets is a picture of a dead body I didn't want to see. After Hurricane Katrina, the NYTimes printed a picture on their front page (their main web page) showing a dead man floating down the river in New Orleans. That may be a very truthful picture, but to me it's overly invasive. I don't need to see dead bodies; I can understand people died without seeing the carnage.
But regardless, I still see this as a tragedy. There's no denying that when people die, it's a tragedy. The more people die, and in a worse situation, it becomes a bigger and stronger tragedy. Perhaps we all have different ways of judging what constitutes a tragedy, but I think we can come to an understanding about that.
__________________
If I am not better, at least I am different. --Jean-Jacques Rousseau
|