but we wouldn't have received big ratings, so we didn't.
Local news is trite and tiresome, even in a major market like Chicago, and I certainly don't think anyone should get even a small fraction of their information from it. So it's tempting for me to disregard it, not to write about it.
But a lot of people do get most of their news from local stations, so it is important. I expect the stations to, at least, meet certain standards in their presentation. So, even if I disregard the happy banal banter with the weather guy, the indifferently written copy, the emphasis on "breaking news" (if you want your car chase to be on the news, plan it for a time when the news chopper is aloft) over actual news, and so forth, occasionally something arises that seems to violate even the basic precepts of journalism.
Today, I'm talking about the "special reports" that pollute the airwaves, particularly during sweeps months. We all know by now that, in a world where Macy's has computer systems that can tell the CEO within a minute that someone bought a pair of mittens, television persists in setting its advertising rates by the ratings in key months (November, February, May, and July). This process distorts programming; for example, look at the shows returning after the writers' strike, perfectly timed to finish new episodes at the end of May.
In local TV news, sweeps months feature cheaply-produced commercials, in heavy play, that promote upcoming special news reports on the 10:00 news (11:00 for you people on the coasts). These reports, of course, are not new - I found a 1996 column discussing this in entertaining fashion. It's not real hard to find more criticism of this practice on the Internet.
Most of these stunts are irritating (with so little time, and so much important information out there, they have the time for this?), but relatively harmless. Last week we were treated to a crucial story in which intrepid reporter Rob Elgas of Channel 5 (the NBC affiliate) went 32 hours without sleep. Yes, that's it, he went 32 whole hours. I would wager that anyone who went to college has stayed up longer than that. We did find out that Rob doesn't function as well when he's tired. Break out the Emmys!
But this kind of tripe is meaningless. What's worse, and the point of the post, is when a news station withholds a potentially important story so it can be slotted into a prime sweeps position. Currently the CBS affiliate, WBBM-TV, is guilty of this. For several days, they've been hyping a story about the dangers of Pyrex containers.
These may be real dangers, as can be seen here. If so, then Channel 2 is sitting on a story about potential peril to viewers simply to build interest and sweeps-time ratings. If it is not so dire, then the station is promoting a nothing story merely to get worried people to tune in.
In neither case is this responsible. It's one thing to sit on a story as reporters attempt to verify facts, get quotes, achieve balance, it's quite another to withhold information simply to create a favorable ratings picture. I suppose this is another end result of treating news as a revenue producer, but it flies in the face of proper journalism.
Local news is trite and tiresome, even in a major market like Chicago, and I certainly don't think anyone should get even a small fraction of their information from it. So it's tempting for me to disregard it, not to write about it.
But a lot of people do get most of their news from local stations, so it is important. I expect the stations to, at least, meet certain standards in their presentation. So, even if I disregard the happy banal banter with the weather guy, the indifferently written copy, the emphasis on "breaking news" (if you want your car chase to be on the news, plan it for a time when the news chopper is aloft) over actual news, and so forth, occasionally something arises that seems to violate even the basic precepts of journalism.
Today, I'm talking about the "special reports" that pollute the airwaves, particularly during sweeps months. We all know by now that, in a world where Macy's has computer systems that can tell the CEO within a minute that someone bought a pair of mittens, television persists in setting its advertising rates by the ratings in key months (November, February, May, and July). This process distorts programming; for example, look at the shows returning after the writers' strike, perfectly timed to finish new episodes at the end of May.
In local TV news, sweeps months feature cheaply-produced commercials, in heavy play, that promote upcoming special news reports on the 10:00 news (11:00 for you people on the coasts). These reports, of course, are not new - I found a 1996 column discussing this in entertaining fashion. It's not real hard to find more criticism of this practice on the Internet.
Most of these stunts are irritating (with so little time, and so much important information out there, they have the time for this?), but relatively harmless. Last week we were treated to a crucial story in which intrepid reporter Rob Elgas of Channel 5 (the NBC affiliate) went 32 hours without sleep. Yes, that's it, he went 32 whole hours. I would wager that anyone who went to college has stayed up longer than that. We did find out that Rob doesn't function as well when he's tired. Break out the Emmys!
But this kind of tripe is meaningless. What's worse, and the point of the post, is when a news station withholds a potentially important story so it can be slotted into a prime sweeps position. Currently the CBS affiliate, WBBM-TV, is guilty of this. For several days, they've been hyping a story about the dangers of Pyrex containers.
These may be real dangers, as can be seen here. If so, then Channel 2 is sitting on a story about potential peril to viewers simply to build interest and sweeps-time ratings. If it is not so dire, then the station is promoting a nothing story merely to get worried people to tune in.
In neither case is this responsible. It's one thing to sit on a story as reporters attempt to verify facts, get quotes, achieve balance, it's quite another to withhold information simply to create a favorable ratings picture. I suppose this is another end result of treating news as a revenue producer, but it flies in the face of proper journalism.
No comments:
Post a Comment