Generally agree, but the “news” isn’t meant to offer solutions, or fix anything.
Is it meant to be a fear firehose and present only discord and strife?
My point being - says who? The “news” is meant to keep people informed and that includes solutions. And it doesn’t dictate everything be a goddamned shitshow 98% of the time. Which is what local news inevitably is, no matter where “local” is.
“who what where when how”, etc. that’s the point of news. Tell the people that. Save the rest for the opinion pages, and don’t muddy the two.
Detail pieces from experts are awesome content, and a happy home for solutions. The news is the retelling of events and situations, as appropriate for the scope of the news org. (Local news vs global news)
I’m not saying opinion articles or solution discussions shouldn’t exist. I’m saying they should be separate.
Yeah. News has to be especially bad, or especially good, or especially unusual. I think there is a bit of a bad bias though. when I watch traffic and weather, while im thrilled if they are good, im mainly looking for bad. do I need to change my travel plans or wear heavier clothing or different shoes or have an umbrella. Similarly I would want to know immediately if there was a bank robbery or escaped criminal or mass shooting happening anywhere I might be going.
Nostalgia doesn’t usually have a purpose but it does help spread some oral history, so here’s a blast from the past. You sound young, born from a time before the news stopped being useful. There was a time, before 1994, when the news would call out the situation and cite experts who would call out alternatives or provide clarity of what the path forward could be.
Take a look at this broadcast from 1980, before Reagan could molest the hell out of the FCC.
Literally giving out news in the format of “here’s the thing, here’s what it means for you.” Now the news is all about blasting “information” without caring about the consequences - or worse, only broadcasting one sided info with an intent on affecting the consequences.
Generally agree, but the “news” isn’t meant to offer solutions, or fix anything.
They are only supposed to highlight or reveal facts and situations.
In some cases, reporting on a topic can result in solutions, as in the case of previously unknown corruption, but that’s an edge case
Is it meant to be a fear firehose and present only discord and strife?
My point being - says who? The “news” is meant to keep people informed and that includes solutions. And it doesn’t dictate everything be a goddamned shitshow 98% of the time. Which is what local news inevitably is, no matter where “local” is.
“who what where when how”, etc. that’s the point of news. Tell the people that. Save the rest for the opinion pages, and don’t muddy the two.
Detail pieces from experts are awesome content, and a happy home for solutions. The news is the retelling of events and situations, as appropriate for the scope of the news org. (Local news vs global news)
I’m not saying opinion articles or solution discussions shouldn’t exist. I’m saying they should be separate.
Are you suggesting opinion can be removed completely from news stories? Are the story choices themselves outside of opinion?
Well, no and no. The real reason local news is a horror story fiesta every night is because good news is boring. It doesn’t sell.
I’m not saying one entity can’t do both, but “news” should be cold information about happenings.
“Opinion/editorial” is the follow up analysis about facts.
Yeah. News has to be especially bad, or especially good, or especially unusual. I think there is a bit of a bad bias though. when I watch traffic and weather, while im thrilled if they are good, im mainly looking for bad. do I need to change my travel plans or wear heavier clothing or different shoes or have an umbrella. Similarly I would want to know immediately if there was a bank robbery or escaped criminal or mass shooting happening anywhere I might be going.
Nostalgia doesn’t usually have a purpose but it does help spread some oral history, so here’s a blast from the past. You sound young, born from a time before the news stopped being useful. There was a time, before 1994, when the news would call out the situation and cite experts who would call out alternatives or provide clarity of what the path forward could be.
Take a look at this broadcast from 1980, before Reagan could molest the hell out of the FCC.
Literally giving out news in the format of “here’s the thing, here’s what it means for you.” Now the news is all about blasting “information” without caring about the consequences - or worse, only broadcasting one sided info with an intent on affecting the consequences.
Thanks for the assumption.
You didn’t refute anything in my comment and just took a pass to write some stuff. Nostalgia? I never mentioned it.
Edit the shared broadcast does nothing to discount my comment.
I’m not describing how news is today, but what it’s ideal state should be.
Ideal: Here are the facts, impartiality.