Evening Standard columnist Sarah Sands finally admits what the public have surely suspected for some time; namely that "reporters thrive on turmoil". Who'd have guessed?
This isn't to criticise the media - we're lucky to have one even if half of it is owned by cuddly old Rupert Murdoch - but most of the big scares (swine flu, bird flu, man flu) have been created or at least fuelled by journalists.
But can you blame them? Good news - unless it's dramatic and different like the Chilean miners' rescue - isn't stimulating to national/global reporters.
To illustrate, a few years back newsreader Martin Lewis observed that there was too much bad news on the airwaves and that perhaps it might make a change if we focused more on positive stories. He couldn't have been more pilloried if he'd been caught burning baby bunny rabbits.
Did he have a point though? I think so.
There IS a lot of positive news out there but it doesn't get reported because it's seen as un-newsworthy ie dull.
And yet we need it more than ever - not just worthy items but news that makes us laugh and realise that yes life can be hard but there are real moments of bliss.
Still, we humans love a bit of drama and that's why soaps are so popular. We might have huffed over the cot death and misery plot in Stenders but we can't pretend we weren't gripped by it.
So an editor's job is not only to ensure we've grasped the issue of the day but more importantly - seeing as how his/her livelihood depends on it - it's to make sure we're grasping/buying the paper that they're selling.
Imagine for example that you're the editor of The Sun, would you really want Rupert Murdoch's cold breath breathing down your neck? Exactly.
So will we ever have an end to hysterical news? I doubt it. Who knows, perhaps in the year 2511, we'll have grown out of the need for turmoil journalism. Until then, look sharp, no doubt there's hospital virus on the loose that turns your genitals inside out.
No comments:
Post a Comment