Wall to Wall Coverage

Films, TV shows, and books of the 'modern' era

Moderators: Sue Sue Applegate, movieman1957, moira finnie, Lzcutter

Post Reply
User avatar
ken123
Posts: 1807
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 4:08 pm
Location: Chicago

Wall to Wall Coverage

Post by ken123 »

With the recent tragedy at Virginia Tech does it annoy you that the Cable News Networks go to Wall to Wall coverage when a breaking News Events occurs. :cry:
User avatar
movieman1957
Administrator
Posts: 5510
Joined: April 15th, 2007, 3:50 pm
Location: MD

Post by movieman1957 »

Yes. At some point they have said all there is to say. It is not to lessen the importance of the event but how many times can you say the same thing. They can go away and come back unless something else is worth interrupting

The most annoying thing, for me, is the incessant showing of the same video clip. The clip is sometimes under a minute and when the host is interviewing someone the same clip will be shown as many as three times in that segment. It being repeated is quite unnecessary.
Chris

"Time flies like an arrow, fruit flies like a banana."
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

It absolutely annoys me...the only redeeming factor being that it gives Jon Stewart more to make fun of. :P

In fact, not only is it annoying - it is often destructive. Because once the commentators and pundits run out of actual NEWS, they resort to personal political or social commentary, just to fill up air time.

But if it's all the same to them, I would prefer to distill the news through my OWN moral filters, thank you very much.

It's no wonder Americans can no longer think for ourselves. It's reached the point where we don't have to. Some news pundit does that for us, and TELLS us what to think. And we are so lazy that we simply believe them.
SSO Admins
Administrator
Posts: 851
Joined: April 5th, 2007, 7:27 pm
Contact:

Post by SSO Admins »

pktrekgirl wrote:In fact, not only is it annoying - it is often destructive. Because once the commentators and pundits run out of actual NEWS, they resort to personal political or social commentary, just to fill up air time.

But if it's all the same to them, I would prefer to distill the news through my OWN moral filters, thank you very much.
The problem is that almost none of us have our own moral filters. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all this punditry is just to fill airtime -- it's a conscious attempt to manipulate public opinion by getting these ideas into the mainstream.

As Gang of Four (the best political punk band ever) puts it in the song Why Theory, "we've all got opinions. Where do they come from? each day seems like a natural fact." Our thoughts, opinions and even our emotions are a product of our society and language -- getting ideas into the mainstream of public thought is a method of manipulating and communicating those meta-concepts to the point where people believe them while thinking they are having independent thoughts. This applies to everyone, even those who recognize this manipulation for what it is.

It's extremely difficult if not impossible to think outside this manipulation web. We would need a specially constructed language to do so.
benwhowell
Posts: 568
Joined: April 16th, 2007, 3:14 pm
Location: Las Vegas
Contact:

And the winner is...

Post by benwhowell »

What annoys me is the obvious attempts to increase ratings and possibly win an Emmy or some other such award...
pktrekgirl
Administrator
Posts: 641
Joined: April 14th, 2007, 1:08 pm
Location: Atlanta, GA, USA

Post by pktrekgirl »

jondaris wrote:
pktrekgirl wrote:In fact, not only is it annoying - it is often destructive. Because once the commentators and pundits run out of actual NEWS, they resort to personal political or social commentary, just to fill up air time.

But if it's all the same to them, I would prefer to distill the news through my OWN moral filters, thank you very much.
The problem is that almost none of us have our own moral filters. Don't make the mistake of thinking that all this punditry is just to fill airtime -- it's a conscious attempt to manipulate public opinion by getting these ideas into the mainstream.
Oh yes...I agree.

I was mainly thinking of some of these clips that Jon Stewart makes fun of. The ones were the media commentators are going on and on for hours about nothing in these 'wall-to-wall' coverages, saying the same thing over and over - reiterating the abundantly obvious until the intelligent viewer can no longer take it.

To me, that is the part were alot of 'filling up airtime' comes in. But then they bring in the self-professed 'experts'...and those guys *do* intentionally try to manipulate the public.

Personally, I am horrified by this coverage of the VA Tech tragedy. I'd love it if they would just knock it off and leave these poor families in peace to deal with their grief and loss. Instead, they pretend to be 'helping' by going over and over it a billion times, complete with ghastly photos and videos...and making all sorts of speculation about the gunman...when the bottom line about the gunman was that he was a severely mentally disturbed individual with a long, documented history of mental illness....who SHOULD have been in an institution, but was not - quite possibly through no fault of his own.

The mentally disturbed are rarely capable of making rational decisions - about the motivations of other students, for example...or about their own delusional state. That kid should have been locked up (voluntarily or not) months ago in a state hospital. But instead, we have a horrible tragedy on our hands....that the media is almost DELIGHTING in as it exploits the situation for ratings...

Just ghastly. :(
Post Reply