![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Been watching some of the coverage of the India situation on CNN and such. It's tragic, but I don't really have anything to say that isn't obvious and cliche. Someone came up with the phrase "India's 9/11," and I have mixed feelings about that. It does convey the shock and tragedy, but... well, maybe it's best not to go comparing scale and nitpicking and all when, at the end of the day, you have over 100 dead and several hundred more wounded. Attacks at one of the world's busiest train stations, two major landmark hotels, two hospitals, and five other targets (all hit in the space of two hours).
But it's the coverage that gets me. CNN, for example, kept talking about the situation at the Chabad Jewish center and one of the hotels, and never mentioned that hospitals had been hit. The train station, if it was brought up at all, was only mentioned in passing. And they kept talking about the few American victims. To bring it home, I guess. But the vast majority of victims were locals. And random tourists, even if Americans and Brits were the primary intended targets.
And there's the airtime they've filled with the story. Yes, it's a big story and deserves a lot of attention. But when we first heard about the situation, I went to the Associated Press and in about one minute read an article containing basically all the facts that were publicly available at the time. Every once in a while, I'd refresh (the AP updates articles as information comes in) and see a minor edit or two, but there really wasn't much.
CNN? Had hour after hour of talking heads saying nothing. Finding new ways to say that they didn't know anything. "Who's responsible?" "We don't know." "What do they want?" "We don't know." "Why did they do this?" "We don't know." "Do you think it was Al Quaeda?" "We don't know." "Okay, thanks for your help." "Anytime." "We go now to our reporter on the scene. What's going on?" "We don't know..."
And yet, with all that, half the information in the AP's 6 (or so) paragraph article was never mentioned on air. Instead, they'd toss speculation around. Could it be Al Quaeda? Pakistan? As if Al Queada is the only terrorist organization in the world. But no, it's the one that we've heard of. The one that hit us. So of course it's the name they're going to toss around. Even though what little evidence there was suggested that it probably wasn't. The CNN anchors would get an expert. Ask if it was Al Quaeda. Be told that we don't know, but probably not. A greater level of organization, as inspired by them, perhaps, but the methods didn't really seem like theirs. And then, 10 minutes later, there'd be a new expert on the screen, and what does the anchor ask? "Could it be... Al Quaeda?"
It's a problem with the 24-hour news networks. I'm far from the first to notice it. They've got all this airtime to fill. And no idea if you're just tuning in or if you've been listening to them go on about this for the last hour. So you get mounds of repetitive filler. Experts and purported experts and complete idiots and whatever else they can scrounge up to fill a few more minutes. And the news gets inflated to such volume that it loses all depth.
I think we need to switch to internet-based news. Merge our TVs with the internet (which is slowly happening). Get the actual concise content on our own schedules, without having to fill a full 24-hour schedule.
Of course, I'd still tune in to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and (since the election) Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman. The people who swim through the sea of news to pull out the best tidbits, and then present it in an interesting, entertaining, and yet (sometimes) thoughtful way. (Of course, I still tend to skip over chunks... Maddow and Olberman's guests, segments with the Daily Show's third-stringers, etc. And both pairs have a sometimes frustrating amount of overlap.)
Not that they're equipped to do a tragedy like this justice. They're more about political news, really. But a couple of hours with them and a few minutes with the AP, and I've got as much news as I feel I need - or can really stomach. And for all that Stewart and Colbert are as much comedians as newsmen, they do a better job covering a story in one minute than CNN does in an entire hour.
But it's the coverage that gets me. CNN, for example, kept talking about the situation at the Chabad Jewish center and one of the hotels, and never mentioned that hospitals had been hit. The train station, if it was brought up at all, was only mentioned in passing. And they kept talking about the few American victims. To bring it home, I guess. But the vast majority of victims were locals. And random tourists, even if Americans and Brits were the primary intended targets.
And there's the airtime they've filled with the story. Yes, it's a big story and deserves a lot of attention. But when we first heard about the situation, I went to the Associated Press and in about one minute read an article containing basically all the facts that were publicly available at the time. Every once in a while, I'd refresh (the AP updates articles as information comes in) and see a minor edit or two, but there really wasn't much.
CNN? Had hour after hour of talking heads saying nothing. Finding new ways to say that they didn't know anything. "Who's responsible?" "We don't know." "What do they want?" "We don't know." "Why did they do this?" "We don't know." "Do you think it was Al Quaeda?" "We don't know." "Okay, thanks for your help." "Anytime." "We go now to our reporter on the scene. What's going on?" "We don't know..."
And yet, with all that, half the information in the AP's 6 (or so) paragraph article was never mentioned on air. Instead, they'd toss speculation around. Could it be Al Quaeda? Pakistan? As if Al Queada is the only terrorist organization in the world. But no, it's the one that we've heard of. The one that hit us. So of course it's the name they're going to toss around. Even though what little evidence there was suggested that it probably wasn't. The CNN anchors would get an expert. Ask if it was Al Quaeda. Be told that we don't know, but probably not. A greater level of organization, as inspired by them, perhaps, but the methods didn't really seem like theirs. And then, 10 minutes later, there'd be a new expert on the screen, and what does the anchor ask? "Could it be... Al Quaeda?"
It's a problem with the 24-hour news networks. I'm far from the first to notice it. They've got all this airtime to fill. And no idea if you're just tuning in or if you've been listening to them go on about this for the last hour. So you get mounds of repetitive filler. Experts and purported experts and complete idiots and whatever else they can scrounge up to fill a few more minutes. And the news gets inflated to such volume that it loses all depth.
I think we need to switch to internet-based news. Merge our TVs with the internet (which is slowly happening). Get the actual concise content on our own schedules, without having to fill a full 24-hour schedule.
Of course, I'd still tune in to Jon Stewart and Stephen Colbert and (since the election) Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman. The people who swim through the sea of news to pull out the best tidbits, and then present it in an interesting, entertaining, and yet (sometimes) thoughtful way. (Of course, I still tend to skip over chunks... Maddow and Olberman's guests, segments with the Daily Show's third-stringers, etc. And both pairs have a sometimes frustrating amount of overlap.)
Not that they're equipped to do a tragedy like this justice. They're more about political news, really. But a couple of hours with them and a few minutes with the AP, and I've got as much news as I feel I need - or can really stomach. And for all that Stewart and Colbert are as much comedians as newsmen, they do a better job covering a story in one minute than CNN does in an entire hour.
![[identity profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/openid.png){kind=small}
From:
no subject
From:
no subject
Al Quaeda? Really? Even after another terrorist groups has already claimed responsibility?
Anyway, why the hell would they hit at India after all this time? Whut?
From:
no subject
Last I heard, India claimed that there was evidence pointing to Pakistan - that they trained there, and if they weren't supported by the government, they weren't stopped, either. But that only came out yesterday, and India apparently points the finger at Pakistan almost out of reflex these days. Not to say they aren't right, but... grain of salt.
Anyway, like I said, Al Quaeda is the only terrorist organization that Americans seem to know these days*, so they throw the name at every question mark. Although some of the ones on the air noted the targets - westerners, high profile buildings, economic centers - seemed to be Al Quaeda's style. I suppose that's something. Even if the actual method of attack wasn't.
*Hey, Roger and Pam! Look! Organized terrorists who aren't Muslim! See? I told you they exist! (Unless, of course, it turns out that these guys were Muslim, or Muslim-backed. But still, the point stands. Jumping to the assumption just makes an ass of you and... also you.)