Good analysis of Natalie Holloway-type stories by DePauw prof.

[americanstranger]

Journalism textbooks highlight the concept of "high impact" news. This is the notion that news should focus on events that affect a large number of people. Beyond the emotions we feel over stories like Natalee, the runaway bride, the lost-then-found Boy Scout in Utah, and even Terri Schiavo, few people beyond immediate family and friends are affected. Nobody's political priorities, economic decisions or social behaviors are affected by gawking at the latest Natalee update or following the personal turmoil of the runaway bride for days on end. Raising the profile and coverage of these highly emotional stories erodes the line between news and entertainment. Even more troubling, such coverage exploits the struggles of private persons for the media's gain.

News producers and the viewers who like following the breathless updates from Aruba rationalize the Natalee coverage by saying that there are important aspects to the story: this could happen to anybody, we need to be concerned for the "girl next door," this shows that tourists need to be more cautious, this demonstrates the legal corruption in Caribbean vacation hot spots, etc. They are flimsy arguments. Natalee's sad circumstances do not give license to media producers and audience gawkers to trample her personal dignity for ratings and vicarious drama during primetime rerun season.

Broadcast news pioneer Edward R. Murrow warned news broadcasters in a 1958 speech that if they didn't use television to "teach" and "illuminate," it could become "merely wires and lights in a box." That possibility is now upon us as personal dramas fill more and more of the news agenda. Add in the "incessant" celebrity coverage of Martha Stewart, Michael Jackson, Robert Blake, etc., and it is clear there is too little illumination going on. Even on the day that Justice Sandra Day O'Connor announced her retirement, several of the evening cable news shows led their broadcasts with Natalee updates.

http://www.collegenews.org/x4624.xml

---

More at link. The article's 2 years old, but relevant to discussions going on here today, because it highlights the cynicism involved with running stories like this one.

- as

[Buzz Clik]

1. I'd like to see Natalie Holloway's analysis of Prof. McCall.

It might provide a different perspective.

[americanstranger]

3. I think the prof's problem is more with the media than with NH.

And he has a point. This story's not being pushed in the interests of justice. It's being done in the interest of ratings.

If a bigger story came along tomorrow Natalie's story would disappear, much like chandra Levy disappeared after 9/11.

- as

[Buzz Clik]

4. I know, and I apologize.

I was just being a smartass.

[truedelphi]

2. It is also scary because I am convinced that

Just as the movie "Wag the Dog" illustrates, in terms of politicians amping up a policy to deflect fom another policy, there is nothing to prevent these TV producers from saying anything on a slow nesday.

Often they will do things like say "Baby Maddie is Found" to enhance arings. Then it will turn out that a kid who looks like Maddie was photographed.
But on a real slow news day, it is conceivable that some of these people would just make up pure crap like "Evidence points to parents' involvement"

Then the population at hand gets revved up for a lynching of innocent famiy members.

But hey, at elast the ratings go sky high.

[Supersedeas]

5. thanks for the link

[onenote]

6. Proving that being a professor doesn't make you smart or right

The Prof cites the "notion that news should focus on events that affect a large number of people." If that was the case, my daily newspaper would be pretty damn thin. We could take out all the obituaries, all the stories about domestic violence, all the stories about traffic accidents and other injuries (man falls off roof, construction worker killed in fall). We could get rid of all of the human interest stories (local restaurant features free steaks for wounded vets), etc etc. Even "national stories" would disappear (abortion clinic bombed? well, if you don't report it beyond the neighborhood where it occurred, how does it affect anyone else?)

Defining "news" by the number of people affected by an event is absurd. Personally, I don't want to live in a world in which I can only learn about things that affect a lot of people -- my knowledge of the world and the people who live in it are expanded when I read or hear about them.

As for the NH story in particular (or Michael Jackson or OJ Simpson etc etc): guess what, the public has always been interested in lurid crime cases or the lifestyles of the rich and famous and always will be. Compared to the era in which there were three networks and only an hour of news a day, there is a lot more being covered that isn't Holloway or some such than every before.

[americanstranger]

7. In context, his citation is still correct in your situation.

A story in your local paper actually does affect a 'large number' of people within the area of the paper's circulation, no?

A story from your neighborhood might not mean a lot in mine, or vice versa. But within the context of the reach of the local paper, the comparison holds.

Conversely - if your local paper ran a comprehensive series on how someone in your community had a cat that kept knocking over the editor's garbage can and ran it for front-page news for weeks, wouldn't you find it trivial and excessive? Wouldn't you start to call the editor's motives and judgment into question after a while?

- as

[onenote]

8. a story about a construction worker getting caught in a cave in affects a tiny number of people

out the nearly 6 million in the area served by my local paper.

but I don't think that its wrong to run those stories.

The prof thinks that "Knowing all there is to know about Natalee and the Michael Jackson trial will hardly contribute to maintaining our freedom." Maybe so, but neither do most of the stories in the paper. Its a false standard to judge what is newsworthy.

[americanstranger]

9. What's a tiny number?

When you think about how many people can associate to a story about a construction worker getting caught in a cave - former classmates, relatives, co-workers, union members, family, and then in a larger sense, other construction workers, people who know where the cave is, people interested in on-the job safety issues - it could end up effecting a lot more than just a few people in the community.

I don't think it's wrong to run those type of stories in a local paper, either. But the NH story is driven more by monetary (ratings for the news channels) considerations than news-worthiness, and I read that as his true point.

- as

[onenote]

10. okay --then by that standard, the number who can associate with the NH story is huge

people with kids going away on high school graduation trips -- pretty big number.

And, of course, its not as if a newspaper stops and does a count of how many former classmates, relatives, union members, or family members are likely readers of the paper before it runs a story.

And newspapers cover britney and natalie etc. too. Why give them a free pass?

[americanstranger]

11. Point taken.

I just figured I'd try posting something about NH that would provide a little context as far as the viewpoints of some DUers. I'll think twice about doing that in the future, because all it seems to be getting me here is an argument.

Maybe a newspaper doesn't count readers, but with 24-hour Arb cycles for CNN and Fox to read, you can bet big money that they do a lot of counting of viewers.

For the record, I don't see Natalie Holloway on the front page of any of the NYC-area newspapers every single day. How many consecutive shows did Nancy Grace or that Abarams fellow on MSNBC do on this story, when there were months that went by when there was zero new information available? How many consecutive shows did Geraldo do on Chandra Levy, just telling his viewers that she was 'still missing?'

And why? NH and Chandra and Terri and Laci are money-makers, that's why. The persuit of justice has precious little to do with it.

-as

[warren pease]

12. Here's what pisses me off about this kind of infotainment...

OK. Obligatory crocodile tears for poor missing, presumed dead, kid. Done, political correctness served.

But she's not the point. The point is that on the first page of a google search I just did on her name, we have coverage from ABC, MSNBC, the International Herald Trib, CNN, Fux, CourtTV, Wikipedia and CBS.

So I did a search on S 1959, the senate version of the "Violent Radicalization and Homegrown Terrorism Prevention Act of 2007," which is the latest and potentially the most diabolical piece of legislative shit to hit the security state cesspool since the Military Commissions Act. This one actually singles out the Internet as a prime source of seditious information that turns ordinary people into fire-breathing terrorists or, just as bad, dangerous lefty radicals who refuse to sit down and shut up. It establishes a commission to look inside the heads of people who have been influenced to think bad thoughts by stuff they've read on the Internet. It's another huge step toward Stalinism/fascism courtesy of the surveillance state.

And what does google tell me? It tells me that not a single "mainstream" media outlet gives a damn about S 1959. More likely, they've been ordered not to give a damn about it. So, on page one, google returns this list of web sites with articles on S 1959:

wordpress, the curmudgeon, bloggernews, justanothercoverup, clipmarks, binaryfreedom, lonelantern, indymedia, willyloman, rense, infowars and naturalnews.

Finally, at the top of page 10, there's the first MSM mention of S 1959 -- and it's from the Washington Times.

So that, in a nutshell, is what's wrong with celebrity stalking or kidnapped kid investigations replacing actual information about a real thing that could have profound impact on literally millions of Americans.

And nobody knows nuthin' about nuthin' except we're assured that the free press is on the job about a two-year-old story concerning some kid I never heard of until I opened this thread.

It's pure, unadulterated bullshit and if Americans don't look elsewhere for their news -- international press, online news sources, alternative US media -- they're going to continue to get dumber, more ignorant and more alienated from everything that matters than they are already. And that's truly scary if you think an informed citizenry is essential to sustain a participatory democratic republic.

Arguably, you're living among the stupidest, least informed population in the industrialized world. Arguably, you're witnessing the steady slide from relative freedom to totalitarianism.

So you can see how well the current model of systematized ignorance is working out.


wp