News Media

The assignment:

Watch several news networks on television, observe how they report the news, and then compare the reports to findings on twitter/online.

Initial observation:

I realize I don't know my television channel listings. I don't usually watch TV, and I don't watch the news on TV at all (I quit once I owned a laptop). After looking up the channel listings, I find two 24/7 news networks, Fox News and CNN. I have preconceived notions about the channels and their pedagogies; I put these behind me and forge ahead. (Side note: I spent about 15 minutes today on Youtube watching this channel, and today was the first time I've watched TV news in several months)

The main thing to notice about how news networks communicate these days is the dual-reporting that happens. The network has a reporter and often an interviewer talking about a preferred topic, and the bottom of the screen has a news-reel type interface that shows headlines. More often than not, I see headlines at the bottom that I care MUCH more about than the rambling they do on screen-- this is what got the Youtube channel I mentioned above going (Build a turtle fence?)-- some of these newscasters just aren't qualified enough to give their opinion (not to disqualify some news anchors). I have heard some people on these channels just speaking for full minutes to take up time before the commercial break. Maybe it is because we simply don't have enough news to cover a 24/7 channel.

I just realized I decided newscasters (who probably went to college for what they're doing) aren't qualified to give their report, however, I like reading twitter posts and blogs. I guess it is because I can choose what I read and WHO I read, rather than the network forcing me to watch what they want me to watch. It all comes back to independence, or the feeling that I am in control of what information I take in.

The Raw Data:

I watched each network for the amount of time they held between commercial breaks and just took notes on what they were reporting, both through the video reports and the "news reel."

Fox News:

The trapped Chilean miners (which I blogged about last week) are now able to communicate with their families through video chat.

American Economy: September stock market is starting well, while the labor market is looking bad; private hiring is up

There was a devastating earthquake in New Zealand, experts say there is a new fault in the surface of the earth, many are now without homes.

All of these were actually verbally/visually reported and mentioned in the news reel while the video reports were going on. The comments from the reporters were vague; they were giving more of a preview for later stories than a report (this was around 7 pm on Sunday), which was a little frustrating. I am not interested in hearing the long, drawn out discussions (often repetitive), so a short paragraph on what could be happening would be better than "Experts say there is a new fault in the surface of the Earth, does that mean we're looking at more earthquakes? Stay tuned.... [cut to commercial]"

CNN:

There was an interview on with the Connecticut attorney general about adult services (often prostitution ads) being banned on Craigslist, a "censored" bar appears instead of the heading. The man's opinion was that "websites should be responsible for what is advertised on their sites"

The news reel bar reported:

New Zealand city on edge after earthquake

"see news happening? go to ireport.com" [This is like a filter blog for regular people to report the news to CNN]

Pakistan floods lead to thousands dead; "washed away" special at 730.

They then went to a preview for the 7:30 special, reporting that floods have washed away a piece of land the size of New England, then went to commercial break.

I have two immediate comments after writing the news pieces; their "teasers" did not want me to sit through 5 minutes of commercials to see what they were going to say, and their news reel did not make me want to keep watching either; both of them made me want to get online and look up the full story.

Twitter:

Chilean Miners: By reading one page of tweets, I found out they had been underground one month, and that they were frustrated over their mail being censored. Also, I found that their video chats (so championed on Fox News) were only one minute a piece.

Economy: CNN tweeted 81% rate US Economy as "poor," others were more sarcastic or cutting in their posts, one saying that if Arizona removed all the illegal immigrants, their economy would collapse.

New Zealand: Tweets were mostly thoughts/prayers towards the victims, others reported facts (7.1 on the Richter scale) and articles about the tragedy.

Craigslist: Most just linked to articles elsewhere about it being banned, there weren't many opinions. Lang0sta tweeted: "Craigslist shouldnt give in to the attacks of its site, they are protected & immune from liability by the Communications Decency Act!"

Pakistan: Most reported that children are suffering the worst, especially through pictures from reporters.

Overall, my impression is that the twitter postings wouldn't exist unless someone found out from another twitter user/facebook/news media sites. I don't know if people get their information off of television news, and I know that I don't really have the patience to sit through the stations' time schedules when I know that I can get more extensive information by using the internet. Even the channels (ireport through CNN) know that the internet is the place to disseminate the news more effectively.