http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=kIyyE_PGATA
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=Pkm5KLDD5fc
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=3B5rdJOFEGs
After reading Gaye Tuchman’s theories about the types of news that the newsworkers’ try to cover I went to WTNH’s YouTube page, and pulled out the first five videos that I found and decided to classify them and see what type of news they actually are.
Tuchman describes five different types of news. Hard news and soft news are the two primary types of news. Hard news is “news information people should have to be informed citizens and soft news concerns human foibles and the ‘texture of our human life’. So are the stories that WTNH covers news that are vital to human life.
Three of the five stories that I found involved shootings in the New Haven area. While these stories are indeed unfortunate and need to be covered, I would not classify them as necessarily hard news. Shootings happen every day and knowing about every shooting in Connecticut isn’t going to decide whether I am an “informed citizen” or not. Tuchman classifies these news stories as spot news, which are things such as robberies, murders, fires etc. She also claims that this is a subclassification of hard news. I tend to disagree with this notion on the basis of her previous definitions. Knowing about fires and murders I feel like are actually more soft news than hard news, as they don’t affect the mass audience that WTNH is trying to go to, and instead it seems like they are more focused on trying to sensationalize the story and get the best shot of the fire, or the best interview with a witness, so that they can say they have the best coverage.
In the Baran and Davis readings, they talk about a form of journalism called “explanatory journalism”. This is a type of journalism which explains why events and statements described by conventional journalists take place. I don’t see enough of this going on in local news. It seems that they are quick to report the news and get the best shots and interviews that they can. But they fail to explain why this news is important and why it affects me. My question is do you think that enough hard news, and information that “people should have to be informed citizens” is covered enough by the media, especially by local news broadcasts?
To answer your question Alex, I don’t think that local news stations cover enough hard news to be able to consider their viewers “informed citizens”. Like you had said in your post, I feel as if most of the news reported is actually soft news even though the news stations consider it hard news.
ReplyDeleteHard news is very difficult to cover mainly because of its time constraint. Although it is most important, it is hardest for news stations to report it quickly and beat the other news stations to the story. If the news isn’t out quickly, the importance of it diminishes. Soft news on the other hand doesn’t have as big of a rush as hard news stories. “Because news is a depletable consumer product, news workers claim that ‘quickening urgency’ is the ‘essence of news’ (Hughes, 1940: 58; Roshco, 1975). If news workers do not act quickly, the hard-news story will be obsolete before it can be distributed in today’s newscast or tomorrow’s paper. To quote Robert Park (Park and Burgess, 1967), old news is ‘mere information’.” (Tuchman, 265)
When considering both of these readings (Tuchman and Baran & Davis), I feel as if the media should cover more participatory news. Participatory news is, “news that reports how citizens routinely engage in actions that have importance for communities” (Baran & Davis, 322). This should make its way from soft news to hard news. Today, most of the news is depressing, reporting about shootings, robberies, and fires. The way most of the media frames their news often makes the public uneasy about walking out their front door, causing people to have anxiety, and making people afraid to live their lives. If the media ‘reframed’ their news, making participatory news hard news, I feel society would feel more at ease. With the addition of more participatory news, I think it’s safe to say that our media consumers can be considered better informed citizens. Do you think that’s fair to say?
I am someone that believes hard news is anything that can "upset" a person in a way (example, a death, suicide, intense natural disaster etc...). Soft news to me is more informative and perhaps even entertaining. While it is true what Tom said, "Hard news is very difficult to cover mainly because of its time constraint" I do feel that the media usually does a good job at covering it. Most stations usually send crews and have live footage of most hard new stories that might just be coming out. It is also up to news stations what they choose to report on and what they consider news, whether soft or hard. "Goffman (1979) observed that most news is about frame violations; that's what makes many events newsworthy. Newscasts report deviations from normality: 'Dog Bites Man' is not news: 'Man Bites Dog' is" (Baran & Davis, 321). I do think that some stations go over board. Tom worded it well when he said, "The way most of the media frames their news often makes the public uneasy about walking out their front door, causing people to have anxiety, and making people afraid to live their lives". It is a fact that people in Canada do not lock their doors because they claim they are not afraid and have no reason to. Michael Moore did a study on this and found that most all news in Canada is soft, and they rarely report of murders and other "hard" news that usually does scare the audience. I do feel that if news station reframed and reported differently that maybe people in our society would be less jumpy and paranoid that bad things are always going to happen to them or around them.
ReplyDeleteAlex, you bring up solid points regarding the differences of hard and soft news and their roles in local news. You mention that Tuchman classifies stories such as murders and fires as a sub-classification of hard news. I have to agree with Tuchman because, in my opinion, this “sub-classification” is situational. In the situation with the New Haven area shootings, I will definitely have to agree with you because this is something that, although serious, happens too often to be considered news that, as McQuail states, “concerns information that people should have to be informed citizens” (McQuail, 262). The way I look at these news mentions, a local news report will provide supporting details to define that area’s political, economic, and societal state. If I am already aware of those states, and the news is not informing me of a change in these states, than I cannot consider the news to be pertinent to me.
ReplyDeleteSoft news makes people aware of what extra events or special interest issues are going on. These soft news stories are the first to be cut if there are more pressing issues at hand, like a hard story. Soft news stories tend to be ‘filler’ news and do not play an essential role in informing the public. I think it is important to again highlight the idea of explanatory journalism as stated in the Baron and Davis readings. Explanatory journalism is explained as “news that answers ‘why’ questions”. A news piece considered to be explanatory journalism should carry the same importance as hard news because the public is learning something about their community and perhaps the reason behind a particular news story. Regarding the WTNH news pieces, they are not giving any “why” explanation to the community as a whole, nor are they even explaining the reasoning for the individual shootings themselves.
Having such stories with no reasoning does not sit right with me. I do not know how many shooting stories are told with no follow up as to why the shootings took place, but I am sure that there are a lot. This may create the image that there are endless crimes, therefore increasing the violence index. The violence index, a “content analysis of a sample week of network television prime-time fare that would demonstrate… how much violence was actually present in that programming” fits into the mean world theory, which could prove to be a good, or a bad situation for society (Baron & Davis, 324). If the violence index increases, the public will see more violence, therefore they might see the world as being more violent. The public may be hesitant to go out and enjoy what their community has to offer in fear of being in the crossfire of a crime or being a victim. If people are not spending time and money in a dangerous community, that community’s economic status will decrease, creating poor living situations, higher need for money and education, and most likely an increase in crime rate. This spiral effect can prove to be harmful to a society.
I think that it is essential that violence on television should include the crimes, but I think it should also include reasoning for the crimes and what a community is going to do about it and what the viewer at home can do about it. These simple educational steps and stories could change a whole society in my opinion. Do you think this is possible?