That is what I was greeted with today as I turned on CNN. Do we really need to NAME every disaster they and other news affiliations cover?
STORM OF THE CENTURY
I hate that.
I'm totally fed up with the splashy sensationalism the permeates the minds of news producers. When CNN comes back from a commercial break, the music plays and BOSTON BOMBINGS jumps out at me from the screen. I hate to imagine how many executive producers sat around a table drinking burnt coffee and brain storming about the size and color of the font to be used.
How about this. Go to commercial break, and when you come back, show a shot of whatever reporter is reporting and start with, "Here's the latest news from Boston....."
Don't advertise the disaster like a billboard advertising a "THREE DAY MATTRESS SALE!"
I am interested in hearing the latest about the tragedy yesterday. I want to hear about the investigation. I want to know when the bombs were placed where they were. I want to know how that could happen, though I do realize it is virtually impossible to secure A CITY.
Reporters are supposed to report the news. Gather all the facts so we, the public, are well informed.
But isn't there a line somewhere ,a line that indicates, "ok, that's all we need to know on this subject."
If the report was worded like this, "3 dead, hundreds injured and many with life threatening injuries," well, that would be enough for me. That pretty much paints a picture of how awful that scene must have been.
What I don't need or want to hear is the gory details of some of the injuries. Reporters asking doctors at the press briefing, "So what was the condition of the leg before you had to amputate it?"
That is information I do not need.
I wonder, what it's like for a family member, to hear this detail of a loved ones injury. I wouldn't think it serves any positive purpose at all.