On Thu, Aug 30, 2012 at 3:51 PM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> Yep, sadly unsurprising. Yep, could have happened anywhere. When > attempting to define what is relevant news, let the word > "unsurprising" and the phrase "could have happened anywhere" serve as > a warning sign that -- though sad -- it might not be news, and it > might be detracting from a greater story elsewhere. > I don't think this particular event is a major or even a standard news story - it deserves about the level of treatment I have seen it given, which is basically an item on a list of convention notes. But I disagree with the premise that the only events that have major news value are those that are surprising. I am familiar with the "man bites dog" cliche, but that is only helpful in context. There are a lot of very unsurprising events that are still important and even major news. Mitt Romney is going to be officially nominated as the Republican candidate for President of the United States in a few hours - that will be unsurprising, and has been virtually certain for more than 12 months. Yet it will still be real, important news. the job of journalists really is not just to tell us surprising things, it is also to report unsurprising things, but give us enough background information so that we can make sense of them and form our own solid judgements. -- TV or Not TV .... The Smartest (TV) People! You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TV or Not TV" group. To post to this group, send email to [email protected] To unsubscribe from this group, send email to [email protected] For more options, visit this group at http://groups.google.com/group/tvornottv?hl=en
