Is there a reason we refer to cable news channels as "news" channels? They carry opinion, not news. Its like calling Starbucks "The Sweet N Low" store, just because they dispense Sweet N Low. My beef is with the talking heads who appear split screen, side by side; when I see this I know that the immediate future brings the kind of behaviour which keeps 3rd graders out of recess. Talking over each other, not permitting the other to speak or finish a sentence, let alone a thought. When did this become acceptable, let alone the template for a "news" channel? Fox News, MSNBC, CNN, Bloomberg, ESPN - they all condone this kind of behviour. PBS Newshour is exempt until further notice, on its own merits.
I have my own ideology concerning the stations I will watch, those which I won't watch, and those which I watch with a grain of salt. I may dislike one station more than another station, but I refuse to watch any of them when the chattering is rude, or uncivil. I don't personally stand for it when I'm speaking with someone else in person, so why should I watch purportedly intelligent people acts like asses just because they don't like what the other guest says?
I have my own issues with the Ann Coulters of the world. My musings today are not about the message delivered, but instead about the manner in which it is delivered. Is it so much to ask that I be allowed to listen to the opinion of each guest, rather than (i) only of the guest who objects and interferes the most or (ii) to neither, when they start talking at each other instead of about the topics at hand? If I wanted to watch a fight I would look to the UFC, where they can really smack each other around rather than some prep school name calling contest.
The global audience should commit to changing the channel, or turning the TV off, next time two idiots are discussing a topic and they start interrupting each other. If the ad revenue starts to drop off, maybe the media powers that be will come to their senses.
No comments:
Post a Comment