When is news, news?

[Tabby]

To me, 50% of today's TV and radio news is not news but pure speculation. News is something that has happened, a fact, not something that might happen. And we won't even mention the so-called 'news' papers.

Do you agree? It makes me quite annoyed.

(it's okay, I'm off my soap box now)
Tabby.

[nfn]

Don't get off your soapbox yet, I'm just climbing up there with you.

I agree, he said, she said isn't news. I want to know exactly what is happening, where, to whom, and why. I don't care who's dyed their hair or had a bum lift. I'm not interested if something MIGHT happen. I just want to know what has happened and if it's a bad thing, how can we stop it happening again! If it's a good thing, how can we make it happen many more times!

Shall I climb down with you now?

[FurryFeet]

Yes.News is news,,North,East,West,South..so being in the past or futre is so cool..lol

[littleoldme]

I have given up reading newspapers completely. If I wanted to read a load of ill-informed, politically biased half-truths and exaggerations, I'd get hold of some party manifestos.

I therefore rely mainly on TV and radio for my knowledge of current events, but agree there is too much speculation. I think part of the problem is these dedicated 24-hour news channels. There is very seldom enough news to fill an entire day, and repeating things too often won't keep the viewers watching, so they bring in "experts" on this, that and the other to give their opinions on various matters. Not even experts are always right though, so it's not actually news at all.

[jno]

well, part of the point of news is not saying what happens but explaining why it matters. OK, Tony Blair today promised to repeal some human rights... but what does that actually mean? How will it affect you and me and the Muslim next door? This invariably involves some element of prediction, and like many predictions it may not turn out to be accurate. But I appreciate it when newspapers and broadcasters try to put things in context for me.

I have zero interest in celebrities, Big Brother, footballers etc and switch off when they appear. But there are places where they're never seen. Financial Times, anyone?

[acw]

nfn - in your list of requests for information you included "why".  Do you agree that we cannot always find an objective answer to "why" and that this will be speculation much of the time?

You lot know that I love a good debate!  I enjoy reading debates in the news, especially political ones.  I also enjoy reading the opinions of journalists on these matters.  It is mainly speculation and opinion, but that interests me. 

I agree that a lot of what is reported is often drivel, but if you buy broadsheet newspapers, or are selective about which sections of the internet news pages you look at, you can avoid the celebrity gossip etc etc. 

If I want objective reporting of events, I'll be an historical encyclopedia.  I want to know about the world today, NOW, as events unfold.  Part of being totally up-to-date is not knowing EXACTLY what is going on, but enjoying seeing that story reveal itself in real time.  To me, that can be truly fascinating, and I enjoy having the option of watching/reading this style of reportinf. 

That said, if people don't like this style, then I don't see why they should read/watch it! :-)  They can always stick to the more objective stuff, and leave the speculation to those who like it.  Bit of a pain when you're watching the news on TV though.  :-p

[acw]

PS - nfn - whilst not meaning to have a go at you at all, your post just raised some more questions for me...

You say you want to know how to stop bad things happening.  Do you not agree with me that many problems have more than one possible solution?  Therefore, it might be possible that people will want to discuss these different options.  I suggest that it is part of the news to see the process, not just the end results.  We are all smart enough to understand the background to these events. 

Finally (and this is it I promise cos I'm really not meaning to pick apart everything you said!) you say you don't want to know what MIGHT happen.  I just thought I'd share with you that I have been very interested in watching the progress of the rescue mission for the stranded sub off the coast of Russia.  We don't know how the story will end, and at the moment the exact causes of the crisis are unclear.  Are you not even slightly curious to know how the story will end?  What about an interest in what MIGHT happen in London in the future with further terrorist threats?

I believe that many news items could be seen as a combination of the who/what/where/why/when/how.  They will contain objective, subjective and speculative elements.  It's impossible to single bits out that are only one.  My Russian Sub example shows reporting of something that HAS happened, coupled with reporting of what IS happening, and what MIGHT happen tomorrow. 

Feel free to stay up there on your soapbox though.  It's great to hear people feeling so strongly about the news.  :-)

[acw]

TYPO CORRECTION

In my first post, I'm not offering to BE an encyclopaedia, I meant to say I'd BUY one!  Oooops!

I don't think I'm the fount of all knowledge - that wasn't an arrogant offer!!

[Tabby]

Well guys, I read your above answers with interest, and I learn. To sum up, I can see a certain level of speculation is required with the news; else the importance of the current facts may be lost.

However, I still say in general there is too much speculation, and some times facts are extrapolated too far.
Thanks for your input

Tabby.

[acw]

Tabby - I think what is perhaps also clear, is that journalists need to be very clear when they are presenting fact, and when they are merely speculating.  It's not always easy to tell, and they do need to be clear which is which! :-)

[ianess]

I'm with you Tabby.   Half of the time it's speculation and scaremongering. The other half is mostly drivel.  We can only assume that we're the good guys because that's what OUR leaders want us to believe. Today's enemies are tomorrow's allies and vice versa.  News-speak, thought police, Big Brother....only it's 2005 and not 1984.

[acw]

We have "thought police" now!?  Crumbs!!!  I thought we only had rules on what we could SAY, not what we THINK.  How do they tell?  Can they work out now that I'm feeling guilty for not working hard enough on my thesis?  Is it like Vanilla Sky?  Can they tell if we're thinking of committing a crime?  Better watch myself on the M5/6 on Tuesday then! :-S

[Hippy]

Just watch for this on TV news. The headline to the item says, "Misnster now says that British eggs carry salmonella. We speak to Egg Minister later..." They speak to Egg minister and a couple more scientists and folk, all of whom say that maybe a small proportion of some eggs might carry traces of salmonella, but ther is nothing to worry about. The TV person persists in phrasing questions like,"And when did we first know that British eggs carried deadly salmonella bacteria?"

The people again say it is only a small proportion of some eggs and that only traces have been found. The TV person then goes onto another item. Later, summing up the news the TV person AGAIN, despite being corrected by all and sundry that they have interviewed, says, "And in a shock report today Egg Minister admits that British eggs carry deADLY

[Hippy]

eadly salmonella, threatening the lives of UK citizens from John'o Groats to Lands End."

[acw]

Is your TV tuned in to 1988? :-p

[nfn]

blimey acw I'm not about to start arguing with you, I'll never win! I'm just a girly who can't be bothered with all the so called celebs and would rather find out what is going on in the world. I love watching a story unfold and speculating with others on possible outcomes. I'm not completely against what might happen, ie. Russian sub, I just don't want the constant inconclusive, ambiguous reporting we appear to have adopted which appears to have no greater credit than to prevent lawsuits.

I agree with littleoldme (and others) we simply do not have enough informative, educational 'news' to fill 24 hour coverage. Morning, lunch and evening bulletins with occasional 'flashes' are enough

[acw]

I wasn't arguing and it's not about "winning".  I was just expressing my opinions, which happened to bounce off the ideas of others.  I was interested by what you said and I'm in now way trying to change your mind.  I presume it's ok for me to disagree, and that doesn't automatically mean that I'm trying to make you all agree with me/"win".

I KNEW I should steer clear of "news" section. 

[Tabby]

To be honest, I think peoples opinions are much more interesting than the news (or by my definition should I say 'facts'), hence I think AB is great.

And if you follow my train of thought (not always easy, I know), this could lead to another question....
Is no news, good news?
Tabby.

[acw]

Ah - we had a long discussion in "phrases and sayings" about the origins of that one.  My conclusion was that, in war time, yes.  Now, I think not.  Cos people will contact you to say they're ok.  So if they don't, you can possibly conclude that they're not. 

Oh, it's all a bit of a worry isn't it!?! :-p