Quote:
Originally Posted by FuglyStick
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.
|
Well, no, not always. Your mileage may vary, but oftentimes the first answer to a question isn't very good. Either the interview subject stumbled, with lots of ums and pauses, or doesn't give a very clear answer ("It was like, ok, the guy came out of the, um, that one over there, and like, but the other guy wasn't, and, you know, it just, yeah." is a direct quote from the raw tape of a story I did this past week, and if I didn't reask the question, the viewers wouldn't have known what in hell she was talking about). Generally repeating a response prods them to restate the answer in a more clear form. As for getting the subject to elaborate. . .Well. Yeah. That's the story. You can't complain that we halfass it and then turn around and complain when we press for more details.
I'm not defending the overall state of journalism because it sucks, but not all of us are just looking for someone to break down on camera.
Whoever did this news report should have been getting eyewitness interviews, but they should also go to the PIO (or whatever they call it there) and gotten the official story.