Local News Anchor Feels Pain from Afar
In times when Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios and broadcasts them over radio stations around the country, it's worth asking the question: when does it cross the line into deception?
This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.
"When he's talking about how cold it is, that's not news, it's entertainment. It's cosmetic," Harrison added.
That sounds like a lot of so-called "news organizations." Their #1 purpose is to entertain, lest they lose a large chunk of their audience. Actual news content is secondary.
"It's no more a lie than putting makeup on a TV anchor to make them look younger. The main thing is that his information does not deceive the public."
One more step in virtualizing the whole world. How soon can we have virtual war, where nobody dies?
So who, exactly is he harming? He's telecommuting - and he's not claiming to investigate these things. It's not like those journalists who fake stories that happen in places they've never been. He's just reading a weather report off a computer, which every radio news anchor does, anyway - it's not as if he's claiming to be out there with a thermometer. And to say things like "when do we get a break" does not constitute lying - it's not as if he said "I'm here in Boston, reporting on blah-blah-blah".
I have many issues with ClearChannel, but frankly, this isn't one of them.
I mean really, does it?
I've wrestled with reality for 35 years and I'm happy to say, I finally won out - Elwood P. Dowd
it's not just ClearChannel, everybody's doing it.
That doesn't mean it's ethical - or the right thing to do.
"Where he's reporting from is irrelevant. I'm not wasting my airtime to tell people where Gary is."
I a standard my mom taught me probably would let him know: if you can't admit what you are doing, then you probably aren't doing the right thing.
In the article they make statements like "location doesn't affect reporting," and "the DJ never actually says he's shivering."
OK. If you don't think it makes a difference, take two seconds to say "my name is John Deaux, and I'm coming to you from Northern Florida. In Where-ever-you-are, USA, it's a bone-chilling five degrees..." If you are afraid to make that little disclosure, then you are implicitly admitting that it does make a difference.
Of course, I've been thinking that Clear Channel is evil for a while now, for totally different reasons.
It must be a slow news day... because this has to be one of the most pointless stories around, whether on slashdot or any other news site.
--Wow some guy broadcasts a news show from home...big freaking deal- The former prime-minister of Canada had a vacation house in Florida as well, and he managed to "run the country" while he was away.
Look at the logo: News for Nerds. Stuff that matters.
Someone enlighten me, why should anyone care?
Aren't there more constructive ways of spending energy than complaining about a guy who is lucky enough to be able to work from his vacation home?
Yeeesh.
P.S. What does Clear Channel have to do with this, anyway?
Local Clear Channel stations make their own music decisions. We all share our local research, but the company NEVER dictates which songs we play. Period.
Yep. People are all up in arms about the DJs being from out of town, but DJs have had little to no say in what songs get played for years. The computer generates a playlist, with maybe a few holes for requests or DJ selections... any deviations from the computer-asigned schedule are logged and subject to review by the PD after it happens, override the schedule the wrong way and the PD will want to have a talk with the DJ...
This is an excellent example of how easy it is to dupe the public into believing something that is not entirely factual. It also drives home the importance of our taking what we hear on radio/TV and what we read in the newspapers with a very big grain of salt.
I think what irritates people such much about this is that this time it was the PRESS in a BLATANT attempt at disception. People like to believe that even though commericals are filled with lies and deceipt and politicans' televised speeches are full of fabrications that somehow the press is above all this and has a responsiblity to be as open and honest with their audience as possible. Now, you and I and most slashdotters know better. But the average person really trusts the media to keep them informed. Sure, this is a relatively small breech of trust. "Who cares?" you might be tempted to ask. And, yes, the actual location of some TV personality doesn't really matter in the grand scheme of things. However, the very idea that this station is involved in deception and, when caught, claim there is nothing wrong with what they are doing is what upsets people so much.
GMD
watch this
NB: I'm a fan of Clinton in most respects, just not how he handled a certain affair. This isn't flamebait, only a joke :)
Mencken had it right. So glad that's old news.
Forgot all the angels on pins arguments, all the quibbling about telecommuting and whether or not everybody is doing it. Forget ALL that. Cut to the chase.
Both the anchor and the radio station don't want the audience to know. Therefore they know they are being deceptive and that it is wrong.
Infuriate left and right
An audience passively consumes what it is served.
So tell me, how much input do you get on which articles get posted and which rejected?
We passively consume the articles, occasionally getting our suggestions accepted. But the real active part only comes *after* the article is posted, and we get to discuss it. Even if the vast majority of us agreed that an article was crap, and should never have been posted, we couldn't change it one iota.
It's official. Most of you are morons.
"We live in times where Clear Channel makes up "local news" reports from central studios. Tsk? Eh? What's the world coming to. Here's another example of radio dishonesty, makes you wonder doesn't it? Where does one draw the line? Huh? Where? Makes you think. Oh, if you're asking, I'll have anuvva Guinness. Cheers."
You are not alone. This is not normal. None of this is normal.
I'm a New Yorker, and I'd flay bin Laden alive if I had the chance. That deluded story posted to kuro5hin would give me a chance to say so to the poster, as well as other commentors. As well as a chance to distinguish my personal interest from a proper US government policy and strategy for fighting terrorism. If it had been suppressed, that chance would have been lost. So posting it doesn't seem to be a problem, unless the system had been somehow gamed to post it contrary to the expressed decisions of the moderators. Or unless actual reality is subservient to expressions on websites, justifying supression of expression to control real events.
You might say that the k5 moderators suck, in which case you could participate and influence to change things for the better. Controversy is not a social problem, unless it's an unmanageable din, or freedom of expression is constrained. What actual "social problems" have k5 people experienced?
--
make install -not war
Correct, and if he says "it's 20 below outside the WBZ studios" and it really is, he's telling the truth. One might think that the only way for him to know that exact number is to be at the studios, but they're flat-out wrong... anybody who can download WeatherBug can get the realtime temperature reading from a unit installed outside of the WBZ studios.
I'd think he was well aware to not use "here in Boston" phrase constructions when he was broadcasting from his house in Florida. Technically, he's almost always wrong when he says "here in Boston" because WBZ's main studios are actually in the community of Allston, MA... and their transmitter is actually in Hull, MA. The station is actually licensed to serve the community of Boston, but a radio station doesn't actually have to be located in it's city of licensed, just close enough so that it covers its city with a "city grade" signal quality.