Question by thosewerethedays: What do you think of news coverage of events like the Virginia Tech massacre?
Does anyone notice that the networks and the local stations manage to fill up air time with “coverage” when they really don’t have any information to report, and then say “More details as they become available” when they haven’t reported any details yet? They should just report what they do know, then move on, IMHO.
We had a shooting of a city official here, and the local radio station bragged about having reporters “on the scene” everywhere, at the hospital, city hall, police headquarters, the vicitim’s home, man-on-the-street interviews, etc., but never once in 20 minutes mentioned the condition of the victim or identified the shooter. Talk about a smoke screen!
On the one hand, in our instant communications age, maybe we expect too much. On the other, competing news outlets seem to be hell-bent on pretending that they’re delivering.
What do you think? What information should the news media have had as early as yesterday? What should they have been reporting?
Answer by tcb396
Are you reading my mind? It seems like they do this with any breaking news. I believe that is why they give out false information from time to time. They need to gather the facts, verify them and then report. I think their belief is, report whatever they can come up with, try to pull in a bigger audience by doing so, charge more for their commerical time and laugh all the way to the bank.
What do you think? Answer below!