|
This is the current state of journalism. The sensational elements are just as important--if not more so--than the actual details of any reporting.
I've noticed watching news magazine shows--20/20, 60 Minutes and the like--that the reporters conducting interviews deliberately lead their subjects into sensational responses anymore. The how and why are not sufficient; they will follow up with a "how does that make you feel" lead if they don't get enough "bang" out of the responses to their questions. Watch any news magazine, and pay attention to how many times a reporter will repeat a response or state the obvious to get the subject to elaborate after they've already been given an answer. They're fishing for the sensationalism that will sell their story. Their language is intentionally leading as well.
So when anyone has a camera in their face anymore, they are conditioned to give a sensational account of what they have seen, because that's what reporting the "facts" has become. Every eye-witness account anymore needs to be taken with a grain of salt, because embellishment is almost a certainty.
Sorry, that was a bit of a tangent to the thread, but it's what popped into my head.
__________________
AZIZ! LIGHT!
|