They're synonymous now: mass media and sensationalism. It doesn't matter if the medium is newspapers, television, radio or the Net. If it's newsworthy, especially in a topical or trendy context, they will build it up like a construction company does skyscrapers. And very often for no point whatsoever.
Yesterday delivered a case in point here if ever I've seen one. All major news outlets got wind of a royal emergency at Buckingham Palace, around 2pm Australian time, and immediately they wouldn't let it go. You could be forgiven for thinking the Queen or Philip had had a stroke or something, but ultimately what was the "emergency"? Phil had elected to withdraw from public engagements, and in August, no less. How does that warrant so much fucking coverage? I doubt even monarchists (and I have never been one) would think it does. It was like being on a rollercoaster, slowly approaching the big fall and then *buckling sound*: it gets jammed right at the top. I also doubt the royals would've wanted to indirectly get their subjects into such a frenzy anyway.
Some news events do deserve ongoing coverage, but I'll close with this to any media personnel reading: you lot often wonder why so many of us have lost faith in journalism. Well, maybe it's time you reconsidered how you practice it.
No comments:
Post a Comment