On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 11:22 AM, Kevin M. <[email protected]> wrote:
> On Tue, Mar 19, 2013 at 10:57 AM, PGage <[email protected]> wrote: > > > Has anyone provided a close comparison of how how MSNBC and FN covered > the > > event? > > As I understand it, MSNBC and Foxnews managed to avoid as much of the > controversy by virtue of the fact they don't really cover news on the > weekends. They use prepackaged, prerecorded hours of programing, so > they weren't likely to need to fill multiple hours with live talking > heads. It was generally those live, unscripted exchanges that led to > all the controversy. > > I don't know where the line is either, PGage, but I think this > specific incident, with the overwhelming evidence of guilt, may have > served as a public tipping point. In this case, it seems that ANY > amount of sympathy for the rapists was going to be too much. Okay - I have had a chance to watch the clip you posed Kevin (thanks for that). So now I have clarified my own reaction to this, and I think there are at least three components to the coverage that should be evaluated separately: 1. Emotional Reporting. This is nothing new - the cable news outfits, local news, and even the broadcasts networks have been doing it for years now. The news here is the verdict and sentence (I can't tell from this clip if they were announced together or not). It is appropriate to report the consequences of the sentence for the two offenders, and even to report or show how emotional they were. But it is not appropriate for either the reporter or the anchor to focus on their own emotions, or to comment on length on the feelings of the subjects of the report in an obvious effort to play to the emotions of the viewers. CNN should be spanked, and and hard, for doing this here, but also for all the other times they do it which I'm sure is at least once a day. CNN seems to have gotten caught this time by mis-judging the audience, and the direction of their feelings. I have no doubt that if they had their finger properly to the wind, they would have been happy to play up the feelings of outrage that the defendant's family felt at seeing the offenders cry and attempt to get sympathy. If CNN had done this it would have been just as inappropriate as what they did do, but the public would not have noticed or criticized them for it. If you are witnessing the burning of the Hiddenberg, the fireboming of Dresden, the fall of the Twin Towers or the murder of a president you are allowed to report on your feelings and play to the feelings of your audience; otherwise shut the hell up and report the news, and leave the emotional manipulations to Oprah and her kind. 2. Disproportionate Focus: Related to the first point, there probably is more focus on how this was going to impact the future of these offenders than was warranted. To be fair to CNN, they did note the seriousness of the crime several times, but particularly when "Candy" takes it back from "Poppy" (and now I feel like I am narrating a duo performance at my local strip club), Candy goes on too much about how this is going to affect the boys future. I think this is probably an automatic consequence of having decided to focus so much on reporting the emotions - since they don't have video of the victim and her family crying, their instinct is to follow the emotional video they do have. 3. Reporting on the Effects of the Registered Sex Offender Laws: This I think was the best piece of reporting in the whole 6 minute segment. The expert who is interviewed by Candy appropriately turns the focus on the consequences of laws, now in most states, that require people convicted of crimes like these, even as teenagers, to register as sex offenders for the rest of their lives. Whether you favor or oppose laws like these (I think they are excessive and way out of control), the public should be informed about their consequences. It is appropriate to define what these boys did as sexual assault, and to refer to it as rape. It is appropriate to send them to detention, and that they lose educational and occupational possibilities as a result. But their actions have nothing in common with the kind of behavior the registered sex offender statutes were originally designed to deal with. If society thinks that digitally penetrating a high school girl when she is black-out drunk is deserving of a life-time penalty, then those laws should be passed and then subject to judicial review to see if they pass constitutional muster (and they only possible justification for the sex offender registration is evidence that the people convicted of the crime are at a very high risk of re-offending, evidence I am positive does not exist in the case of the current crime under consideration). -- -- 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 --- You received this message because you are subscribed to the Google Groups "TVorNotTV" group. To unsubscribe from this group and stop receiving emails from it, send an email to [email protected]. For more options, visit https://groups.google.com/groups/opt_out.
