"HOW TO WATCH TV NEWS."   Term Paper ID:30839 Click to get this paper

Essay Subject: Discusses the 1992 book on television journalism.... More...

6 Pages / 1350 Words 1 sources, 6 Citations, APA Format $24.00 Return to List of Papers

Paper Abstract: Discusses the 1992 book of television journalism. The book as a frame of reference for critical thinking about mass-market merchandising of presenting information to the public. The issue of whether much of the information is of news value, or just entertainment value. Contention of the authors that TV news is not good. Danger of viewers believing they are becoming reliably informed. Paper Introduction: The big picture of How to Watch TV News is that it is a frame of reference for critical thinking about television journalism, or, more generally, mass-market merchandising of the presentation to the public of information that is called--but is not necessarily--news. Taking as its starting point the fact that access to news means, or more exactly is widely believed to mean, access to informed perspective on what is important to understand about the culture, the political environment, and the status of social and personal well-being, How to Watch takes the view that the form (usually) and content (frequently) of television journalism increasingly tend toward having entertainment rather than information value. The result is that television news is performance masquerading as presentation. And in consequence, argue the authors, the news (so to speak) is not good. Text of the Paper: The entire text of the paper is shown below. However, the text is somewhat scrambled. We want to give you as much information as we possibly can about our papers and essays, but we cannot give them away for free. In the text below you will find that while disordered, many of the phrases are essentially intact. From this text you will be able to get a solid sense of the writing style, the concepts addressed, and the sources used in the research paper. The authors cite the use of music andvisual cues to heighten interest in upcoming newscasts, as well as theattention to presenting the image of highly professional news teams in theperson of on-air anchors--even though anchors may be as muchactor/performer as journalist (sometimes actor/performer instead ofjournalist!). Despite the value of How to Watch, there is a certain antique qualityabout it. Such messages are the source of funding for newsorganizations; that is, they pay the news directors' and reporters' andanchors' salaries and fund all manner of expenses associated with newsgathering and presentation. So the United Couch Potatoes of America sit and sit, and sit, and before the know it, Marsha and Rick have hooked us into their news program, promising "team coverage," no less, of today's latest disaster. ReferencesPostman, N., & Powers, S. However, thefact of packaging begs the question of branding and marketing, and the mostegregious violation of the hard-news aspect of news occurs when newsorganizations of high repute construct reenactments of events that couldnot have been recorded in real time (p. That is why Postman and Powersexplain that, even in this age of the 24-hour news cycle, those who obtaintheir news solely from television are unlikely to be getting the fullstory. Taking as itsstarting point the fact that access to news means, or more exactly iswidely believed to mean, access to informed perspective on what isimportant to understand about the culture, the political environment, andthe status of social and personal well-being, How to Watch takes the viewthat the form (usually) and content (frequently) of television journalismincreasingly tend toward having entertainment rather than informationvalue. How to Watch provides relatively arcane information about theattributes of what and who it takes to get television news broadcast. They comedown on the side of viewing the courts as a "semipublic" space, suggesting,however, that coverage of trials can be useful and indeed educational "onlyif coverage extends beyond TV's need to dramatize the moment" (1992, p.143). The fact that there is no evidence of a subsequent edition of How toWatch that captures the evolution of TV news is disquieting if only becausethe rate of technological development has not stopped and will not stopwith the innovations discussed in the book. 33-4), which provide opinionsabout so-called TVQ, or the watchability quotient, of presenter-performers.Meanwhile, of course, the corporatist-marketing element of TV news isbusily engaged at keeping viewers engaged, which does much to explain thenews-sports-weather-feature format that enables broadcasters to keep themood light, and try to leave the viewer with a smile" (p. How to Watch is very much an exercise in demythologizing themasquerade of entertainment as news, although it is also useful simply asan explanation of the many elements that go into constructing newspresentations. How to watch TV news. 27-8). Smilingviewers, the theory seems to be, are more likely than unsmiling ones toremain seated and viewing the "news" station to which they are tuned thanto trouble themselves with changing a channel. Such information may be of interest on its own terms.However, it is the manipulation of information--whether as news or as thecraft of broadcasting--that is of most interest. (1992). New York: Penguin. 93ff). Add to this the fact that the24-hour news cycle has not been dominated solely by CNN but has been joinedby Fox News, CNBC, MSNBC, and CNN's own headline-news channel. Thedifficulties associated with superficiality and performance/reportagetension have been compounded by the phenomenon of "talking heads," or as itwere dueling experts, who provide commentary on the news that may or maynot be informed or educational. Now this visual element is an all-embracing featureof news delivery--ranging from the hairstyles of on-air personnel to thevideo accompaniment to a given story, whether in the form of excitinggraphics or videotaped action visuals. 29). They develop a rather elaboratepresentation of arguments for and against allowing courtroom cameras,citing the notorious 193 s filming of the Hauptmann trial for the Lindberghkidnapping. Thebook, however valuable as a cautionary tale to people who perceive morevalue in TV news than may actually be there, does not sufficiently capturethese elements and the impact of unending innovation. Newspapers and magazines are able to go into the kind of factualdetail and perspective that 15-second sound bites (that was in 198 ; todaythe bites are 5 seconds long only) cannot provide. Find out where it hit. Now this is where the antique quality comes in. Technology has outstripped theability of the mass media to keep pace with its moral implications. event. Film at eleven. Such news teases areembedded not only in entertainment programming. Since 1992, Court TVand broadcast TV alike have televised certain trials, notably the infamousO.J. In other words, such events as the O.J.trial (and other feeding-frenzy media phenomena) have not only dramatizedthe moment but also extended the dramatization, in ways that Postman andPowers do not anticipate in their argument. Postman and Powerscite the liberal use of "focus groups" (pp. To see why, it is important to understand that the book waspublished in 1992. 111-112). Whether you know it or not, we are programmed to watch the news, by programmers. . The result is that television news is performance masquerading aspresentation. The key objective is to keep the viewers watching the news, with theexpectation that they will also watch the commercial presentations. Itexplains the duties of on-air and behind-the-camera personnel, fromreporters and camera crew in the field to floor managers in the studio andnews directors in the assignment office to the on-camera anchors. Postman and Powers cite the existence of Court TV andwhat, in 1992, was an au courant discussion: whether it was a good idea toallow cameras in the courtroom. But mereexplanation and information are hardly the whole story. 37). The authors alsodissect and analyze the foundations of news broadcasts, which they arguehave most to do with corporate and marketing interests. This is why the best news program may not have ratings as high as a news program with a strong lead-in. For whatever elseis true about television news available on cable and commercial networks,it is also true that news is sandwiched between a multiplicity of marketingand advertising messages. . And in consequence, argue the authors, the news (so to speak)is not good. News, like entertainment, is packaged, but it has credibility asharder information, a credibility reinforced by the enormous array oftechnology that supports visual and auditory interest in news reports.Viewers may believe that they are becoming reliably informed on the stateof the world and on issues that may be of importance to them. It may not be fair but it is television (Postman & Powers, 1992, p. The authors cite theappearance of chaotically ordered stories in a typical newscast, noting,however, that it is only appearance and that story order "is reallyorchestrated to draw the audience from one story to the next--from onesection to the next--through the commercial breaks to the end of the show"(1992, pp. Postman and Powers explain: It starts while you're watching the entertainment shows before the news. For example:Tornado. And both kinds of TV had no problem extending coverage beyondthe dramatized moment; witness the plethora of wrapup commentators thatExplained It All To Everyone day after day. That is why it willremain dated as long as the authors fail to take account of the rathercomplex and vexed social fallout accompanying the atom bomb oftelecommunications technology. However, such messages are also in tension with the news that theyenable, to the degree the news may be structured in a way that has theeffect of encouraging viewers to stay tuned for the news while they alsoview the commercials. This may be due toeditorial bias on the part of news directors, who function as assignmenteditors, but the book warns that the disconnect can also arise because ofcorporatist and marketing bias. Their conclusion is that televised trials teach no more aboutthe judicial process than responsible news accounts of trials. . While acknowledging thatfield reporters may work very hard to compile a meaningful story and mayput in long hours with camera operators to obtain visually compellingimages to go with their stories, the authors note that, for marketing aswell as editorial reasons, there may be a disconnect between what reportersreport and what ends up being seen on television news. It is tempting to blame the corporate interests for deliberatelypackaging news as entertainment in an exciting manner; however, viewers, orconsumers, of television news are equally culpable, as for example whentheir principal comment on news broadcasts has less to do with the issuesinvolved than with the appearance of the broadcaster. That explains the use of the "tease," the name givento on-air "come-on" phraseology that forecasts upcoming news much ascarnival barkers forecast what is inside the tent (pp. What isimplied by that, however, is that in order to appeal to the greatest numberof viewers, news even of the most complex of issues must be distinguishedby simplicity--not to say superficiality. Such devices explain,nevertheless, why the visual element of news stories so often determinestheir newsworthiness. . The big picture of How to Watch TV News is that it is a frame ofreference for critical thinking about television journalism, or, moregenerally, mass-market merchandising of the presentation to the public ofinformation that is called--but is not necessarily--news. . . If this paper is not what you are looking for, you can search again: Search for: or Click here to request an essay written just for you.

Many of our Papers can be Downloaded From This Site!

PLEASE READ THIS, IT IS IMPORTANT!

Office hours are Monday through Friday, from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). You may place orders for custom research over the phone during office hours. E-mail requests can be made to our graduate and undergraduate department any time, and will be reviewed during office hours. You may also contact customer service any time through e-mail, and we will review your message during business hours. A great many papers can be downloaded right from this site, but not all of them. If you would like to know if a particular paper is downloadable, just look in the description for: "Available for Internet Download: Y" or "Available for Internet Download: N" If you wish to purchase a paper which is NOT available for immediate download, you will need to make other shipping arrangements. Also, please be aware that these orders are processed Monday through Friday from 9 am to 5 pm (PST). If you place your order after 4:45pm on Friday, it will not be processed until the following Monday morning. We charge $8 per page for all of our pre-written reports, plus shipping (and tax for California residents). However, the highest cost of any ONE report is $136, or 17 pages. Please, take a moment. Make sure you have chosen the report you want or need BEFORE you complete your order. If you are not sure, allow us to help you. We do not offer refunds or exchanges, so it is important for you to let us answer your questions during office hours. Reports which are e-mailed or downloaded are in Microsoft Word format. We are making more reports available for e-mail delivery faster than we can update our listings. Please call to check on the status of particular reports. There are many other shipping options which are listed on the Checkout page.