JournoAnon

Feeling run down? Lack energy? Shaky hands?

Is it Code Yellow getting to your head?

How about the SARS scare?

No? Then you must be a news junkie.

Welcome to my world: 9-11 layoff, under-employed temp or casual hire, too much time on my hands. Ask what time it is in Iraq and I can tell you. It's HST +13 hours.

Under these circumstances it's possible to watch 18 of the 24-hour war coverage. If the coffee is hot, the sofa is comfy and the resumes unaswered it's news time. Or in my case watching the watchers watch.

To the news junkies: When a big story breaks, what gets you to turn it off?
To the those who won't watch any of it, even in peacetime: Why not?

Comments

i dont watch the news for one thing its too depressing and not how i want to start my day off. on the other hand my husband watches the news every morning lately. and he tells me whats going on. jon, do you really think its healthy to be watching all those news all day and everyday? you need to get out and do something! got a dog? dont you think its time to get him/her off the chain and let the dog take you for a walk? or go out walking and get some fresh air!! everyone says too much tv is not good. war or not!
besides.. does anyone read the newspaper anymore?!?!

18 of 24 hours is an exaggeration of my intake. I find the balance evens out once I've finished my morning jog, errands around town and trolling for work. Reading both newspapers is also on the to do list.

It does bring up an interesting question: What of the journalists who are either there covering the story or reporting on it from the states? I know if I were working in media I'd be putting in +/- 10 hour days dealing with this story or issues in producing it on deadline. Thinking about it now I realize it wasn't really discussed in college journalism classes.

Oh, I'm a news junkie all right. Like you, I'm as interested in the news being reported as I am the reporting itself.

But, since I'm fortunate enough to be employed, my news intake is a bit more limited. I do, however, have NPR/BBC/CBC coverage on the radio from the moment I get in the car in the moring, through the day, until I get out of my car post-rushhour in the evening. Radio coverage is generally more level-headed, since there's not the mad race to be first you see between the television networks. I read what I can online, as well, usually coverage originating in the UK.

And yes, I'm generally finding the geographic distribution of preferred sources moving away from the East Coast toward Europe.

I depend on the local papers for local news only. And that's what I want them to do well. I can't believe people rag on them for being late with big stories - from the war to the space shuttle to 9/11 - especially on their websites. When something big goes down in the Middle East, who the heck types "localnewsfolks.com" into their browser?

Anyway.

My wife avoids the news at home - not out of disinterest or wanting to bury her head in the sand, but because she gets too worked up about it. So if I watch any TV coverage it's a bit of CNN late at night. It's a different patch of the day that most U.S. viewers see, so usually any major developments I catch at bedtime are reported as breaking news in the morning.

Jon, you raise a good question. The new world of media makes 24/7, wall-to-wall coverage of specific issues a semi-regular event, a major investment by news organizations and a substantial, if temporary, shift in the priorities and deployments of journalists. If this type of saturated environment isn't the focus of a specialized journalism class, it should be.

What I've been fascinated by is the difference in reporting between "embedded" (there's a buzzword I already want to strangle) and "unilateral" journalists in the region. The "embedded" journalists get great footage, to be sure, but the "unilaterals" more dependably get stories that you'll not get out of official sources.

I also wonder if Americans realize how much of their information is coming second- and third-hand, as most major networks pulled their salaried reporters out of the hot zones as soon as the occupation began.

I love, for example, how Gulf War media vet Peter Arnett is sticking around... sponsored by National Geographic. Whenever the major networks (NBC in particular) want to use his reporting, or his footage, they have to mention his backers (and tolerate that big yellow rectangle).

How far away are we, I wonder, from Pepsi putting Christiane Amanpour in the mouth of a dragon, just to hear, across megamedia outlets, "...reporting from Pyongyang for Pepsi - the taste of the next generation."

It was very hard this weekend to watch WAR TV. I had change the channel or turn off the TV for a good portion of the day as the drone reporting continues. There's a lot of time devoted to talking heads when real breaking news is scarce.

And I don't know if you've noticed, but we're being censored on what we see on the major American networks. If you watch BBC or the news networks of other countries, they reveal a lot more information that what you get from the big three here and from Fox.

The other day, BBC America (found on digital cable) had much better reporting than the reporters traveling with the military. (You won't see me EMBEDDING anyone here).

Those Brits were objective, and the newscast jumped from field reporter to field reporter and wasted little time with talking heads. I don't really care what a retired general, or a former Iraq specialist have to say about what may or may not be happening with the scene being broadcast. I say let the people there report what they see, and call it that way.

We don't need armchair reporters or soldiers.

Ryan: Funny you mention sponsorship. I mentioned it earlier on my weblog.

Madnamo: Amen. Most of the 24 hour news coverage is "talk show" format with a lot of guessing with minimal facts. When I've had enough of that I turn it off and get some chores done.

I totally want BBC America, but I won't be switching to digital anytime soon. Guess I'll have to settle for BBC Online.

Re: BBC America. It's the American version of the British Broadcast Corp. It broke from regular programming for WAR TV on Thursday and Friday, but has since returned to regularly scheduled stuff. The BBC online is a good alternative.

I depend almost entirely for news on radio, the BBC Worldwide Service, which is broadcast by the weaker NPR station here.

And they more or less turned the channel over to the BBC for the first two days of the war.

Of course, they also broadcast "Marketplace" at six o'clock, before the BBC at seven, and I know I'm not the only one here who listens to "Marketplace" (where, since so much of the "news" is really based on economics, one gets a pretty good picture of where the world is on that day ... if "good" can be used, in this time).

The other buzzword this conflict has generated that's used too many times so far is "Shock and Awe".

Despite working in a newsroom for three years, I don't think I was ever much of a news junkie, and the fact I pretty much stopped reading newspapers and watching TV news since leaving the profession three years ago shows it.

I dislike broadcast journalism on principle. I get upset as much by how the news is reported as the news itself. Going to war was bad enough -- putting up with the 24-hour news cycle sucks much ass.

I do read abandoned newspapers if I'm at a coffeeshop or a fast food restaurant, but my quarters need to go elsewhere. So it's rare that I go out of my way to get a newspaper.

I think it's the untapped editor in me that pretty much prevents me from taking in any coverage. I get too worked up critiquing the way something news is covered -- Why wasn't this or that question asked? What idiot decided blah-blah story was newsworthy?

Thank Diety for Law and Order and JAG reruns at 6 p.m. Too bad TNN pulled the 10 p.m. airing of ST: TNG.

I am working my way into the world of print media journalism. To write you have to read. Thus, I devour newspapers, magazines and websites, and on occasion, I watch television.

There is something extremely disturbing about laying out in the hot Hawaiian sun with a pina colada while watching people battling it out in the midst of a sand storm.

Why do I read?
Because I have to know to make an educated decision. When do I stop?
Once it becomes redundant.

Hey Anaiis, can i take your spot in that hot hawaiian sun and your pina colada? sorry, i am just anxious to get under that hot hawaiian sun! :)

Sure, Heidi, let's trade for the day. I haven't seen California since I was thirteen years old. I miss the strange, preternatural feeling of sundown in L.A. Have you ever felt that? It shivers down your spine.

Post a Comment