There is a new Web site that is concentrating solely on producing "good news" and nothing else.
While this is an outstanding endeavor, it is hardly the first time that someone has concentrated on good news. Indeed, good news stories in this column have generated outstanding responses.
Back in the 1990s, a few television stations around the country heard the complaints about local news -- too much murder, too much crime, and too much bad news. They decided that they would not do those stories anymore and focus more on positive news and good news.
In the beginning, it appeared it was a good idea. People watched and the accolades came in.
As time wore on, the audiences dwindled and eventually got to the point where the newsrooms had to go back to reporting the old way. It was not without some hand wringing, but it had to be done.
"Good news" stories are a welcome break from the constant stream of death, mayhem and destruction. However, people don't want to be fed a steady diet of good news.
Good news is the distraction -- a cleansing of the information palate. But many of the stories that do well on my work Web site usually involve death, sex or controversy. It is what people want to read, while maintaining an air of superiority by insisting that stations produce too much "bad news."
That's the great thing about news on the Internet. If you click on a link to a headline, you chose to read that story.
So fill up on all the bad news you want. Just remember, you asked for it.
----------------------------------------------------
And while I'm on the news rant, can we please get some context in our stories? Recently, it was reported that a boy died from avian flu in China -- the first such death in the region. It was widely reported and led some news reports.
In the 2003-2004 flu season, the deaths of 93 children younger than 18 in the United States was reported to the Centers for Disease Control and Prevention. They died from traditional flu and not the dreaded avian flu that seems to get all the press.
All I'm asking for is context.
--------------------------------------
"Evacuate? In our moment of triumph? I think you overestimate their chances!"
Touch 'em all with me, whether you agree with me or criticize me. I like the way you think! Tell me your opinion. Add a comment below and tell me what you think or write to me if you want to join the ever-growing e-mail list to have my column delivered right to your inbox.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Context? I think you mean accuracy. And while we're at it, how about some basic English grammar and decent editing? Many people (my grandparents included) learned English by reading newspapers and magazines. They learned proper English grammar, with proper punctuation. In the days before spellcheck, these two news providers prided themselves on having close to zero typographical errors (known today as "typos") - both in grammar and punctuation. What the author missed, the editor would pick up (since that was his or her job) and, since both had a commanding understanding of both grammar and punctuation, typos were rare enough to be glaring. Nowadays, even editors seem to miss the basics.
Or am I just growing older and getting picky?
Post a Comment