Genre and The News (April 4, 2009)
My news log dated last Sunday, March 29th, tracked Fox local news at 5:30pm.
To me, perhaps the most interesting aspect of my log was the amount of time spent on different news stories. The second longest news story (2 minutes exactly) was the first one: the impact of the Red River Flooding on Fargo schools. Following this story, the rest of the thirty minutes was broken into 90 to 10 seconds. Each of these brief stories were interspersed with the reminder, "Weather...coming up!" It was embarrassingly clear that the station recognized that most people watch local news for...THE WEATHER REPORT!!!
Let's make a comparison:
The weather report=3 minutes and 30 seconds
Clip on local shooting=10 seconds
Clip on North Carolina nursing home shooting=10 seconds
Duplex Fire=10 seconds
Greenhouse that can grow crops on the moon=40 seconds
In this way, I find that the imbalance of time spent on the weather vs. the rest of the stories is more of a reflection of audience viewing goals rather than a strategy the station is using to influence audience political or social beliefs.
However, this is not to claim that local news doesn't attempt to influence viewers or assume a biased political/social position (we are talking Fox News here for heaven's sake!). For example, news anchors often frame stories with conversational speech. The manner in which stories are presented impact viewers' frame of reference. During a 1 minute update on the weekend news, the Fox news anchor framed the headline stories as "The Big Three." Ultimately, viewers see that "The Big Three" refers to Obama offering aid to another country, Obama and first lady traveling to Europe, and...American Idol. Ah, yes. As part of "The Big Three," American Idol is no less important than President Obama...an interesting reflection of American culture.
Certainly, it is the responsibility of viewers to decide how to interpret the news. Just because Fox news equates Obama and want-to-be-rockstars does not (by any means) force Americans to make the same comparison. In fact, many Americans probably recognize the inaccuracy of this equation. Still, unless viewers are critical and careful to contrast different news stories/venues(a concept that includes the conversation about corporate news monopolies and censorship), it is pretty damn easy to be complicit.
To me, perhaps the most interesting aspect of my log was the amount of time spent on different news stories. The second longest news story (2 minutes exactly) was the first one: the impact of the Red River Flooding on Fargo schools. Following this story, the rest of the thirty minutes was broken into 90 to 10 seconds. Each of these brief stories were interspersed with the reminder, "Weather...coming up!" It was embarrassingly clear that the station recognized that most people watch local news for...THE WEATHER REPORT!!!
Let's make a comparison:
The weather report=3 minutes and 30 seconds
Clip on local shooting=10 seconds
Clip on North Carolina nursing home shooting=10 seconds
Duplex Fire=10 seconds
Greenhouse that can grow crops on the moon=40 seconds
In this way, I find that the imbalance of time spent on the weather vs. the rest of the stories is more of a reflection of audience viewing goals rather than a strategy the station is using to influence audience political or social beliefs.
However, this is not to claim that local news doesn't attempt to influence viewers or assume a biased political/social position (we are talking Fox News here for heaven's sake!). For example, news anchors often frame stories with conversational speech. The manner in which stories are presented impact viewers' frame of reference. During a 1 minute update on the weekend news, the Fox news anchor framed the headline stories as "The Big Three." Ultimately, viewers see that "The Big Three" refers to Obama offering aid to another country, Obama and first lady traveling to Europe, and...American Idol. Ah, yes. As part of "The Big Three," American Idol is no less important than President Obama...an interesting reflection of American culture.
Certainly, it is the responsibility of viewers to decide how to interpret the news. Just because Fox news equates Obama and want-to-be-rockstars does not (by any means) force Americans to make the same comparison. In fact, many Americans probably recognize the inaccuracy of this equation. Still, unless viewers are critical and careful to contrast different news stories/venues(a concept that includes the conversation about corporate news monopolies and censorship), it is pretty damn easy to be complicit.
I like your observation about placing the same importance on Obama and American Idol; I agree that most Americans can differentiate between the actual importance of the two subjects. By placing American Idol in the top 3, they are also further promoting their station, as it is a Fox show. No way would we see them talking about the last Apprentice or Survivor episode!
ReplyDeleteI agree--it's easy to be complicit! I wouldn't bet on the fact that the majority of FOX viewers--or any others for that matter--are critical of what they're watching (although that sounds awful & biased of me). I would hazard to guess that the majority of news viewers (at least of the 3 major channels & FOX)are not overly critical, but rather take the news for what it is/what is shown...Could that be right? I hope not.
ReplyDeleteI also watched Fox News and kept getting the updates about the weather coming up as well....and it finally came over half way through the broadcast. News stories are so short, like you noticed, and it is so sad that in one minute or less we are supposed to be "informed" citizens on an issue.
ReplyDelete