Comments on: In Campaigning Is TV Reality? http://pjnet.org/post/45/ Public Journalism Network Mon, 20 Jun 2011 21:59:16 -0700 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Leonard Witt http://pjnet.org/post/45/comment-page-1/#comment-22 Leonard Witt Sun, 01 Feb 2004 14:32:54 +0000 http://wordpress.pjnet.org/post/45/#comment-22 Jeff, let me start off by apologizing. My media and journalism comment was snide and I regretted it not long after I sent it. My rage was not aimed at you, it was aimed at the sorry state of what used to be TV news and now is media entertainment. So when I think I hear anyone defending it…well, I sometimes say regrettable things. So now, I will try to have a more controlled argument. I want to deal with your sentence where you say, "And the candidates play to TV NOT to live crowds whenever there are TV cameras present." And the problem is that the TV news allows the candidate to play to the TV. In fact, that is what I am trying to get at. They shoot only the candidate and fail to pull back both literally and figuratively and put things in context. If the candidate managers are good at it, they control the message because they know TV is going to present it with no context. So then that becomes the reality. The TV "news" folks know they are being manipulated. So when the time comes that a candidate acts like he is not on script, as in Dean's case, they play it 700 times. However, if they pulled back the cameras, we would have seen a much different reality. But they rarely do, so we, as citizens, get a "played to" reality, which is a managed reality or a manipulated reality. It is a PR team's orchestrated presentation of reality. But it isn’t real. I would like to agree with onecent's (a commenter at Jarvis'site) comments, but the truth is that 76 percent of people in America get their election news from TV. However, that number continues to fall; I hope it is because people are looking for something more real. Yes, onecent I have been a print journalist...and I am proud of it, but I am not proud of what is happening to the profession. It is more and more difficult to find journalism with context. Too few in the profession are pulling back either with camera or pen and getting the whole, fuller story. That's why I like what is happening with blogs. I get more of the story. I get to see not just the 30-second Dean sound bite. I get to see it in greater context. Which brings us back to where we started. I think the Dean Scream is a perfect launching point for a case study of what is wrong with TV news...with the central purpose of looking for ways to make it better. And I am not just picking on TV news, there are plenty of case study possibilities to find out what is wrong with print news as we search for ways to make it better. Jeff, let me start off by apologizing. My media and journalism comment was snide and I regretted it not long after I sent it. My rage was not aimed at you, it was aimed at the sorry state of what used to be TV news and now is media entertainment. So when I think I hear anyone defending it…well, I sometimes say regrettable things.

So now, I will try to have a more controlled argument. I want to deal with your sentence where you say, “And the candidates play to TV NOT to live crowds whenever there are TV cameras present.”

And the problem is that the TV news allows the candidate to play to the TV. In fact, that is what I am trying to get at. They shoot only the candidate and fail to pull back both literally and figuratively and put things in context. If the candidate managers are good at it, they control the message because they know TV is going to present it with no context. So then that becomes the reality.

The TV “news” folks know they are being manipulated. So when the time comes that a candidate acts like he is not on script, as in Dean’s case, they play it 700 times. However, if they pulled back the cameras, we would have seen a much different reality.

But they rarely do, so we, as citizens, get a “played to” reality, which is a managed reality or a manipulated reality. It is a PR team’s orchestrated presentation of reality. But it isn’t real.

I would like to agree with onecent’s (a commenter at Jarvis’site) comments, but the truth is that 76 percent of people in America get their election news from TV. However, that number continues to fall; I hope it is because people are looking for something more real.

Yes, onecent I have been a print journalist…and I am proud of it, but I am not proud of what is happening to the profession. It is more and more difficult to find journalism with context. Too few in the profession are pulling back either with camera or pen and getting the whole, fuller story. That’s why I like what is happening with blogs. I get more of the story. I get to see not just the 30-second Dean sound bite. I get to see it in greater context. Which brings us back to where we started. I think the Dean Scream is a perfect launching point for a case study of what is wrong with TV news…with the central purpose of looking for ways to make it better. And I am not just picking on TV news, there are plenty of case study possibilities to find out what is wrong with print news as we search for ways to make it better.

]]> By: Jeff Jarvis http://pjnet.org/post/45/comment-page-1/#comment-21 Jeff Jarvis Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:24:01 +0000 http://wordpress.pjnet.org/post/45/#comment-21 Well, I was going to say that we were not at war, we were just having a discussion, until I read the rest of your post and found your all-too-snarky snipe: "Your business is media; mine is journalism." Well, excuuuuuse me! Want to see my clips? Want to know about the stories I've covered? Want to know about my career in journalism? Pull up a chair and bring the beer. This is exactly the kind of talk that turns people off about journalism. Well, I was going to say that we were not at war, we were just having a discussion, until I read the rest of your post and found your all-too-snarky snipe: “Your business is media; mine is journalism.” Well, excuuuuuse me!
Want to see my clips? Want to know about the stories I’ve covered? Want to know about my career in journalism? Pull up a chair and bring the beer. This is exactly the kind of talk that turns people off about journalism.

]]> By: Dick Olson http://pjnet.org/post/45/comment-page-1/#comment-20 Dick Olson Sat, 31 Jan 2004 23:11:50 +0000 http://wordpress.pjnet.org/post/45/#comment-20 Like all things there's an element of truth in both points of view. TV can capture images which support the old advantage a picture is "Worth a Thousand Words". However, words do have meaning and can "Get Lost" in the world of images. That's why many news programs use "Quotes" to emphasise points that otherwise would be lost. For me, give me both, BUT meeting the candidates LIVE is "Different" and far more informative than either print or TV mediums. Like all things there’s an element of truth in both points of view. TV can capture images which support the old advantage a picture is “Worth a Thousand Words”. However, words do have meaning and can “Get Lost” in the world of images. That’s why many news programs use “Quotes” to emphasise points that otherwise would be lost. For me, give me both, BUT meeting the candidates LIVE is “Different” and far more informative than either print or TV mediums.

]]>