diumenge, de març 04, 2007
Breaking Story
People who come up with the titles for news segments have to be some of the most passive aggressive people out there.
If you do not know what I mean by news title I am referring to the graphic you'll see while an anchor person is "reading the news." Some examples are "Neglected New Orleans," "Britney Gone Bald," "K-Fed Up."
The reason I think the authors of those blurbs are such scoundrels is because they create powerful negative stigmas without any consequences. We never know who these people are, and for the most part it could be some computer software running an algorithm. Regardless of their origins it would be incredibly naive to dismiss the persuasive power those few words have.
One that stood out to me this morning was "Al Qaeda 3.0," which was provided by the bastion of integrity headquartered in Atlanta- CNN.
CNN, CNBC, and ESPN have to be the most popular channels played on mute. You can find them being played at bars, gyms, offices, and bathrooms. The people running these channels
obviously know this, which is why every single one provides a ticker on the bottom. And in most cases they will use graphical bullet points to emphasize the premise of the piece. They are also aware that the largest/brightest thing on the screen will receive the most attention therefore making it ever more important that the segment's title be extremely captivating.
So Al Qaeda 3.0, which I saw on mute, most likely referred to the annual resurgence of the Afghani based jihad every spring. Apparently the promise of 72 virgins isn't quite as persuasive when its fucking freezing outside. Shrinkage could be terrorism's greatest enemy.
I find it appalling that one would equate the resurgence of a nationalistic militia which seeks to oppress all individuality and difference among its people to the rolling out of new computer software. As if Al Qaeda leaders have been investing their funds in the R&D department instead of building up weapons and forces. No doubt they all sat around a table and garnered insight from charts and graphs on how the 'casualty experience' turned out the past few quarters.
Yet to the person in a cube/office/ivory tower in Atlanta that is what it seemed most like. The analogy was evident to them. I would suppose the troops on the ground have a different perspective and other choice words for those who take the coming onslaught as a glib matter.
I don't know what I was expecting though. The news doesn't hope to inform us about anything anymore. The main goal at the end of the day is to entertain and achieve high ratings. Whether that is done by shocking us with imagery or always reffering to the decibel meter to judge who wins the argument is irrelevant.
No doubt freedom of expression is good thing and I in no way am trying to say that the people should not be tolerated. What I am trying to convey is that the words put forth by these people should not be accepted and that perhaps they need to reexamine their values in regard to gravity of war and the sacrifices of others.
Publica un comentari a l'entrada
If you do not know what I mean by news title I am referring to the graphic you'll see while an anchor person is "reading the news." Some examples are "Neglected New Orleans," "Britney Gone Bald," "K-Fed Up."The reason I think the authors of those blurbs are such scoundrels is because they create powerful negative stigmas without any consequences. We never know who these people are, and for the most part it could be some computer software running an algorithm. Regardless of their origins it would be incredibly naive to dismiss the persuasive power those few words have.
One that stood out to me this morning was "Al Qaeda 3.0," which was provided by the bastion of integrity headquartered in Atlanta- CNN.
CNN, CNBC, and ESPN have to be the most popular channels played on mute. You can find them being played at bars, gyms, offices, and bathrooms. The people running these channels
obviously know this, which is why every single one provides a ticker on the bottom. And in most cases they will use graphical bullet points to emphasize the premise of the piece. They are also aware that the largest/brightest thing on the screen will receive the most attention therefore making it ever more important that the segment's title be extremely captivating.So Al Qaeda 3.0, which I saw on mute, most likely referred to the annual resurgence of the Afghani based jihad every spring. Apparently the promise of 72 virgins isn't quite as persuasive when its fucking freezing outside. Shrinkage could be terrorism's greatest enemy.
I find it appalling that one would equate the resurgence of a nationalistic militia which seeks to oppress all individuality and difference among its people to the rolling out of new computer software. As if Al Qaeda leaders have been investing their funds in the R&D department instead of building up weapons and forces. No doubt they all sat around a table and garnered insight from charts and graphs on how the 'casualty experience' turned out the past few quarters.
Yet to the person in a cube/office/ivory tower in Atlanta that is what it seemed most like. The analogy was evident to them. I would suppose the troops on the ground have a different perspective and other choice words for those who take the coming onslaught as a glib matter.
I don't know what I was expecting though. The news doesn't hope to inform us about anything anymore. The main goal at the end of the day is to entertain and achieve high ratings. Whether that is done by shocking us with imagery or always reffering to the decibel meter to judge who wins the argument is irrelevant.No doubt freedom of expression is good thing and I in no way am trying to say that the people should not be tolerated. What I am trying to convey is that the words put forth by these people should not be accepted and that perhaps they need to reexamine their values in regard to gravity of war and the sacrifices of others.
Publica un comentari a l'entrada