Ya gotta "love" the sophistication of American media...

[PCIntern]

1. “What went through your mind when you heard that your child was kidnapped by terrorists?”

2. “Have you considered the fact that if you destroy Hamas, who would be able to manage Gaza?”

3. “How long is this going to last? You know, Americans have a short attention span and little stomach for any war which lasts more than a week or two.”

I swear I heard these questions today and came very close to losing my lunch over it. I think that these individuals think that you can have a two page typed summary of how to conduct a hostage rescue/termination of a terrorist organization. It doesn’t work that way.

I recall the Gulf War preamble, and all these individuals who claimed to be experts on military operations stating that the Iraqi Army, particularly the Revolutionary Guard was incredibly powerful and the Americans risked catastrophe. Well, the vaunted Iraqi forces were annihilated and vanquished in hours. Their army ceased to exist. General Schwarzkopf stated that there was no resistance between our forces and Baghdad. All these expert’s disappeared from tv until the War with Iraq at which time they were a mite more circumspect. Let’s wait and see what happens here -actually we have no choice. We are merely observers on a message board.

[cbabe]

1. BBC and CBC do the same.

Therapy talk puts my teeth on edge:

How are you coping?

What did you feel when…?

How are you feeling/sleeping etc?

[chowmama]

2. The first news stories are important

They supply actual news, new info we need to know. After that, they have to fill the time somehow, not knowing when or if the next actual details will trickle out. Finally, a new story comes along, or they just give up on the old story. But it's we who have the short attention span? They tell us when to switch our attention by switching what they report. Hey, look over here!

Regarding 1. A lot of the time-fillers are what I call 'gawker news'. DH calls it "Isn't it awful? Wanna see more??" I truly hate it. I never want to see a camera and microphone shoved in a grieving person's face again. Double, triple and quadruple if it's the face of a child. "So, how did you feel when you..." some horror or other. What are they supposed to say? As if there is any way they can truly express it. None of us will understand, ever, unless it happens to us. Is this vital news? Is it solving a problem? Helping? Is it caring for them in any way?

Nothing gets me to change a channel quicker. It's not a short attention span, it's sheer horror at the basic inhumanity of the interviewers and the station owners who control them. I prefer print news (including the non-video internet) when I can get it. No need to wrap things up in 90 seconds with a clever transition to some new celebrity gossip or playoff game. More details and less impulse to just slap someone silly.

[cbabe]

3. You said it very well. Thank you.

[Buns_of_Fire]

4. Like, "Other than that, Mrs. Lincoln, how was the play?" nt

[Silent3]

5. What our media should do (but never will) is stop equating the importance of a story...

...to the amount of time/bandwidth spent on that story.

Sometimes a very important story doesn't have a lot of detail to go with it. News media should just move on to other news stories once the important details of the current big story have been relayed, and save us from those who take advantage of these situations, hoping their misdeeds will get lost in the noise.