![[personal profile]](https://www.dreamwidth.org/img/silk/identity/user.png){kind=small}
Is it just me, or does it drive anyone else up the f@#king wall when the media resort to endless vox-pop grabs from the Great Unwashed general public whenever something happens & there aren't a lot of facts or official views/statements to report?
And they'll run those grabs no matter how (ir)relevant they are to the facts at hand. Some bloke who was walking his dog 3 streets away from the action but "heard a noise like a car backfiring..." or suchlike will get his 10 seconds of air-time or 2 lines of print just because... well... WHY exactly??!!??!!
Or the 'ear'-witness to this story today. A newsworthy event, certainly, but given that nobody's released a statement or official viewpoint yet, we have to instead hear from anyone in the vicinity & their inane drivel, including such laxatives as "I was with my baby out for a walk I heard this noise and I thought some kids were flying a toy plane. Then I saw it drop into the garage and it burst into flames," she said.
"I was in shock. It was so scary. I had my baby. I started screaming."
We already know that's what happened dearie, so your prattle is superfluous, but my real question is ~ why is your baby so important that we have to hear about it twice? Does being a mother make you more qualified to carry on to the media about how little you saw? I'll bet if she's interviewed by the TV crews, said baby will be prominently displayed. Again ~ WHY exactly?!?!? Jesus, lady... somebody DIED in that crash & we're supposed to feel more concerned for your kid because it was so scary for you? Diddums.
For god's sake, shut up. If you have nothing of note to say, say nothing. Have some bloody dignity... if not for yourself, then for your kid & SHUT THE F@#K UP!!!!!!
Ultimately, I suppose, it's the editors/producers decision/fault that all this fertiliser is aired. But I don't get it... If there are no facts or 'official' statements available, since when does public hearsay make up for them? I just don't understand how/why the media think Joe & Josephine Bloggs repetitive blather makes a story more informative, important or interesting... Or why they insist on padding out a one paragraph story with reams of either the bleeding obvious or the completely irrelevant. Do they think that hearing about or seeing a baby will make us feel better about the loss of life? Or is it a case of making the 'woman in the street' feel (self)important. Is it a grab for ratings, because the interviewee will tell all their friends to "Watch me on the news tonight!!"?
So, who's the bigger cynic ~ the media or me?
And they'll run those grabs no matter how (ir)relevant they are to the facts at hand. Some bloke who was walking his dog 3 streets away from the action but "heard a noise like a car backfiring..." or suchlike will get his 10 seconds of air-time or 2 lines of print just because... well... WHY exactly??!!??!!
Or the 'ear'-witness to this story today. A newsworthy event, certainly, but given that nobody's released a statement or official viewpoint yet, we have to instead hear from anyone in the vicinity & their inane drivel, including such laxatives as "I was with my baby out for a walk I heard this noise and I thought some kids were flying a toy plane. Then I saw it drop into the garage and it burst into flames," she said.
"I was in shock. It was so scary. I had my baby. I started screaming."
We already know that's what happened dearie, so your prattle is superfluous, but my real question is ~ why is your baby so important that we have to hear about it twice? Does being a mother make you more qualified to carry on to the media about how little you saw? I'll bet if she's interviewed by the TV crews, said baby will be prominently displayed. Again ~ WHY exactly?!?!? Jesus, lady... somebody DIED in that crash & we're supposed to feel more concerned for your kid because it was so scary for you? Diddums.
For god's sake, shut up. If you have nothing of note to say, say nothing. Have some bloody dignity... if not for yourself, then for your kid & SHUT THE F@#K UP!!!!!!
Ultimately, I suppose, it's the editors/producers decision/fault that all this fertiliser is aired. But I don't get it... If there are no facts or 'official' statements available, since when does public hearsay make up for them? I just don't understand how/why the media think Joe & Josephine Bloggs repetitive blather makes a story more informative, important or interesting... Or why they insist on padding out a one paragraph story with reams of either the bleeding obvious or the completely irrelevant. Do they think that hearing about or seeing a baby will make us feel better about the loss of life? Or is it a case of making the 'woman in the street' feel (self)important. Is it a grab for ratings, because the interviewee will tell all their friends to "Watch me on the news tonight!!"?
So, who's the bigger cynic ~ the media or me?
