I’ve had quite a bit of time to reflect this week as the media strove mightily to wring the last possible second of screen time out of the Boston Marathon bombing and its sequelae.
It occurred to me that ours is one of the first generations that has been able to instantly access inputs from across the globe, and we obviously have no idea how to manage that.
I have a couple of thoughts.
Merriam Webster defines journalism as the collection and editing of news for presentation. More specifically, they define it as writing characterized by direct presentation of facts or description of events without interpretation. I also checked for a definition of news and found: a report of recent events. Parenthetically, in order to be newsworthy, something should be “interesting enough to the general public to warrant reporting.”
I know the bombing was a big deal, and I was concerned for friends in the area; but, really, what was the news? Obviously some people must have been glued to their screens because the MSM could not shut up about it. I don’t think we needed the hours and hours of “reporters” in front of cameras sharing tweets, rumors, file footage, and speculation.
The absent parents can’t believe their kids did this; I get that. I worked with a woman whose son murdered a woman, and she had a lot of trouble dealing with that. If either of my angels got into trouble, I’d blame their mother straight out.
Since they stopped the race after the blast, there’s no way we needed more than three or four hours of media coverage from the blast to the capture of the second suspect last night to address the actual news. Everything over that was just the media sucking every iota of interest out of what was, at its root, a tragic event that will forever change the lives of the casualties and all who loved them.
I think the coverage has been a disservice to those folks and bad journalism.