Every day they’re adding new features proposing new angles.
A few are constructive or newsworthy, like Obama’s visit and the question of
what should be learned and acted upon in the aftermath. But many of them aren’t;
many are just grabbing as much copy as they can get, because, to the media,
that’s what it’s worth.
The latest is the publication of pictures of the children
who lost their lives. What purpose does that serve but to pander to morbid
curiosity? Do I need to see pictures of beautiful, live children who are no longer
either beautiful or alive in order to know how terrible this thing is? No,
and neither should anybody. This is another example of how insensitive the media
are, and it’s about time people simply refused to go along with them.
6 comments:
I had to stop watching the news for the very same reasons you're talking about Jeff. I start dreaming about tragedies like these if I don't control the input that the media is putting out. I agree with you that there is so much insensitivity with this whole tragedy. There's only so many times anyone can hear about this.
It makes me wonder, Wendy, whether the media's only real concern is to accurately judge when they've reached the point of 'tragedy fatigue,' and further exposure becomes redundant to their interests.
The only real concern of the media is ratings, which amounts to money, and if that means pandering to peoples' morbid curiosity, then so be it. You're very right about the insensitivity, Jeff (JJ? Which is better?). Unfortunately, greed often deadens the conscience.
Yes, I know. I blame the people who lap it up just as much as the media (moreso, sometimes.)
You choose the name. What a person chooses to call me gives me a better picture of them.
Right you are.
Jeff it is. Hey ho.
For god's sake, I have no idea what this spam filter wants me to type. I guess I'm a robot.
The numbers are often the worst, I find. Some of them are so dark, I've no idea how they expect you to read them.
Post a Comment