News Informs, Doesn't Entertain

Americans watched as another senseless act of violence took place at the Boston Marathon. The two explosive devices tore through innocent bystanders who were cheering runners as they approached the finish line. No thought was given whether children were present. Of course, that’s the twisted moral compass that terrorists have.

            That was the first terrible act against this country on April 15. The second one came afterward. The guilty parties this time were the television news stations. They jumped on the story and for days rode it like a galloping horse.

            I’m all for news and keeping the public informed. I’m also a big fan of news media outlets; the papers have for several years afforded me the forum for my columns. However, at some point, common sense has to take over.

            I doubt that the public wants to have “continuing coverage” of tragedies. Sure, we all want to know what is happening, but eventually, most folks have to return to lives and jobs and families.

  

          The first time I remember continuing coverage of any event was when President Kennedy was assassinated. The country took a punch to the gut, and the only thing we knew to do was view the three networks. I watched the day Oswald was shot by Jack Ruby. To this day, I can hear the mournful sound of muted drums as the Kennedy’s coffin traveled down the streets to its final resting place.

            We all wanted to view the early space flights and kept up with the first American to orbit the earth and walk on the moon. In later years, space shots lost their glamour, and people didn’t tune in as much. The explosion of Challenger immediately had news programs going.

            What’s so annoying is the way national news programs make entertainment of tragedies. Within minutes of an event, names have been assigned to them (“Terror in Boston”), and each is introduced with its own special music. Of course, networks manage to work in plenty of commercial breaks during air time.

            On April 15, the NBC news devoted its entire regular program to the terrorist explosion during the Boston Marathon. That wasn’t enough, so the network added a second half hour, and then at 10:00 p.m. they were back with “in-depth” reporting. Brian Williams was still at his seat, and Matt Lauer had been dragged from his bed to stand on the street as close to the bombing site as possible. He interviewed three people who had little information. The young woman was pregnant, and one of the men was a block away from the blast when it occurred. That’s all right because anything is used to make the coverage go on and on and on. Analysis by dozens of people numbed the minds of viewers.

            I figure that this terrorist act netted a handsome profit for the networks. I also am certain that the anchors feel the need to report live from Boston. Never mind that the folks already in the field do fine jobs of covering stories; it’s all about appearances.

            Many Americans believe that this kind of coverage is just what culprits want, and it serves as reinforcement for those who might want that fifteen minutes of fame.

A better way to cover such events is to play “Joe Friday” and “just give the facts.” Then give only brief updates on future broadcasts. Don’t give the criminals all that free publicity. Instead, report the news OBJECTIVELY and let the public do the speculating. At the same time, this approach will allow agencies to do their jobs and more quickly bring criminals to justice.

            I, for one, long for the days of Walter Cronkite and Huntley and Brinkley. Those men reported the news; they didn’t interject themselves as parts of it. News should inform viewers. We can find other ways of being entertained. The only continuing coverage I want to see is information about a vicious storm or tornado bearing down on my home. The truth be told, television could learn a lot about reporting from newspapers.