Comments on: Speech coverage became political too quickly http://www.blogsmonroe.com/editors/2009/02/251/ Comments on journalism, newspapers and the media Fri, 20 Nov 2009 21:49:00 -0500 http://wordpress.org/?v=2.8.5 hourly 1 By: Dan Shaw http://www.blogsmonroe.com/editors/2009/02/251/comment-page-1/#comment-11702 Dan Shaw Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:55:37 +0000 http://www.blogsmonroe.com/editors/?p=251#comment-11702 Very well said. Obviously, this is more of a problem with TV, where it's part of the culture. They don't seem to know any other way. But it seems like newspapers, the Internet and even NPR fall into the same trap. Very well said.

Obviously, this is more of a problem with TV, where it’s part of the culture. They don’t seem to know any other way.

But it seems like newspapers, the Internet and even NPR fall into the same trap.

]]> By: Brian David Hensley http://www.blogsmonroe.com/editors/2009/02/251/comment-page-1/#comment-11701 Brian David Hensley Wed, 25 Feb 2009 17:40:27 +0000 http://www.blogsmonroe.com/editors/?p=251#comment-11701 I agree that we should spend more time analyzing and explaining things in the news. Too often I find myself debating a subject with someone only to find out that they have no clue what I'm talking about. At which point I have to explain the policy, and then defend my position and in the mean time try to figure out their position in the issue as well, and then debate it. As you can imagine I don't talk politics often in real life anymore because of this. People just don't seem to get it, they just know they are angry. If the news actually just explained a story instead of getting into the middle of the fight maybe people would be better informed to make decisions. This would be extermly helpfull to the average joe as well as the seasoned political junkie. For example I don't think I have once heard tort reform explained on tv, just heard reasons for and against it, and why the other guy is an idot and obviously wrong. Everything I learned on the subject I had to research myself. I think the news format should be something like this, we will use last night as an example. The president makes an hour long speech, then the conservative side makes it's response. Now what should happen is that the news should go over what the president said and EXPLAIN what it means to people who don't follow poilitcs daily. Then after the subtext and pre-story and annalysis has finished then we can start arguing about it. Last night on MSNBC, you got the left wing response immediately follwoing the speech, and on Fox news, you had the right wing response, no actuall analysis on what the president said and what it means for you and me. The networks went staright into fighting the other side mode. This is very unhelpful, and as much as I live and die for political commentary, and argumentative fireworks, (think Dick Army vs Joan Walsh from salon.com on Hardball last week ;) it is only appealing to people who have a firm grasp on what the issues are and what they mean. I agree that we should spend more time analyzing and explaining things in the news. Too often I find myself debating a subject with someone only to find out that they have no clue what I’m talking about. At which point I have to explain the policy, and then defend my position and in the mean time try to figure out their position in the issue as well, and then debate it. As you can imagine I don’t talk politics often in real life anymore because of this. People just don’t seem to get it, they just know they are angry. If the news actually just explained a story instead of getting into the middle of the fight maybe people would be better informed to make decisions. This would be extermly helpfull to the average joe as well as the seasoned political junkie. For example I don’t think I have once heard tort reform explained on tv, just heard reasons for and against it, and why the other guy is an idot and obviously wrong. Everything I learned on the subject I had to research myself. I think the news format should be something like this, we will use last night as an example. The president makes an hour long speech, then the conservative side makes it’s response. Now what should happen is that the news should go over what the president said and EXPLAIN what it means to people who don’t follow poilitcs daily. Then after the subtext and pre-story and annalysis has finished then we can start arguing about it. Last night on MSNBC, you got the left wing response immediately follwoing the speech, and on Fox news, you had the right wing response, no actuall analysis on what the president said and what it means for you and me. The networks went staright into fighting the other side mode. This is very unhelpful, and as much as I live and die for political commentary, and argumentative fireworks, (think Dick Army vs Joan Walsh from salon.com on Hardball last week ;) it is only appealing to people who have a firm grasp on what the issues are and what they mean.

]]>