|
Crime
often leads TV reporting because it's cheaper
By
Elliott Brack
Editor and Publisher
Gwinnett
Forum.com
July 10, 2001 -- Mary Root's oldest boy, Douglas,
on returning recently from Idaho, was laid up mending a broken shoulder.
Recuperating, he watched local television. He told his mother, "I
see a lot of crime news on Atlanta TV. The whole time I was in Idaho
(six months), nobody got killed in the whole state."
Not so in Atlanta.
When in the Dakotas recently, watching television, we were also
hit with the realization that there was virtually no crime news
reported.
Why?
First of all, there's not so much crime in these open, vast areas
of the West. And, of course, there are not so many people close
together, which we suppose also reduces crime.
There's another reason in Atlanta why you see such heavy crime
news on television. It's a reactive element, as one station has
a heavy crime news element, and other stations take it up in a competitive
beat. It's like the major TV stations brag here: "We've got
more crime news than you have."
Unfortunately, there's another reason why crime news is so heavily
reported, we put forward. You see, it's far cheaper to fill the
air spaces with crime news than it is to sink your efforts in solid
reporting of "the issues."
Think about it: developing news, like crime, is reactive. Reporters
hear of some big traffic wreck, robbery, shooting, or other bizarre
element, and rush to the scene, their cameras rolling as they arrive.
How much does this cost, for instance, compared to digging into
the many facets of the reasons behind high crime, or why Johnny
isn't reading at certain levels or detailing a complicated embezzlement
case?
Crime news is the latest event, or simply picking up an item off
the courthouse blotter. It's simple. Even untrained reporters can
jot down names off a list, or interview the eye-witnesses or friend
of the deceased or even the victims themselves. That's why new reporters
start on the "cops beat." All that takes is a little brass.
But what does it take, and how long does it take, to develop significant
stories like the reduction of game birds in Georgia, or corruption
in some element of government? Good reporters have to sift through
document after document to develop these essentially sound stories.
But poking a microphone into someone's face, or pointing your camera
at a crime scene? You figure.
Here money enters the picture. It's far cheaper and easier to report
simple crime stories than it is to really develop significant, solid
stories, which cost significant dollars.
That's why Douglas Root realized he was seeing a lot crime news
in Georgia, and did not see much in Idaho. TV stations in remote
areas don't compete with crime news, but they have to dig more for
news....and they are probably better television stations.
There may be more crime around than we would like in Atlanta. The
problem is that TV stations really don't have to ram it down our
throats, er, that is, our ears.
Good electronic reporting, as evidence by Public Broadcasting System
affiliates, is more than blood and guts. Unfortunately, in Atlanta,
crime news is a major portion of what we get on our local stations!
FEEDBACK:
Forum Has Reasoned
Dialogue
July 8, 2001
Editor, the Forum:
"Congratulations on your GwinnettForum.com venture. It looks
great and will provide a place for reasoned dialogue."
-- Scott LeCraw, Snellville.
THOUGHT FOR THE DAY
"Television news has really become a headline service ---
it's talk, talk, talk and personalities."
--- John Morton, newspaper analyst, 2000.
Send
us your thoughts for this community forum
We encourage you to respond to this posting or past postings in
the Archives, or to send your original views. Send your thoughts
to: elliott@brack.net, or
to Box 2623, Norcross, Ga. 30091. Your submission will be edited
for style and clarity, then sent back to you for your approval prior
to publication.
-- 30 --
|
