Print and broadcast news compared

FROM time to time, we rap some local TV newscasts for often not being newscasts at all, but a mix of anecdotal reports about crimes, fires, accidents, rumors, gossip, etc.

The goal seems to be to constantly “hook” viewers into watching by appealing, not to their need to be informed about “history daily in the making,” but on diverting or heart-tugging “infotainment,” the more entertaining, the better.

Our complaint is valid, because newscasts are supposed to inform and enlighten, not “entertain” (that’s the job of drama, musicals, comedies and such). However, it’s been smugly ignored for the most part, so it’s (self-serving) business as usual on many of our TV newscasts. How else can we get our point across and motivate our TV news people to do better?

Last week, we came up with a new gambit: We watched a local newscast from start to finish, and listed down the “news” items that it included, to be assessed not just by TV news people, but by viewers and readers as well:

The newscast began with “news” reports about two fires, followed by a street kid throwing a rock at a car, a Salisi Gang crime, somebody stealing a motorcycle—before the first real news report, about a rise in gas prices. Also real news was a report on declining PhilHealth funds, and the availability of many jobs online.

However, the nonnews items soon took over again. They included items about a man running amok and stabbing somebody, a sick child’s fight to eat well, a TV movie star’s family, a Filipino child dancing on a US TV show, a cop accused of slapping somebody, a killer finally getting caught, and news or rumors about in-fighting in the Supreme Court.

As you can see, about 70 percent of the featured “news” items are really not to be found in the news pages of broadsheets. So, why are they found in such abundance on TV?

Because the TV medium is supposed to be more reflective of “vibrant” life than the intentionally factual and objective reports in newspapers. TV people feel that, if they feature only what the papers report the following day, they will lose many viewers.

Now, we don’t want them to lose their shirts and popularity, we just need them to do their job to inform the public about what happened today that will be part of relevant and significant history tomorrow. Thieves stealing motorcycles and kids throwing rocks certainly don’t justify for that.

It’s time now for viewers and readers to weigh in on the issue, because they’re the ones most adversely affected by it. If TV doesn’t tell them about much of the national and international events that will actually affect their families’ lives and prospects—why aren’t they complaining?

On the same day that we watched the representative newscast in question, other news programs informed their viewers about some national events not touched on by the particular show we viewed. Worse, the news telecast in question featured no international news at all! What happens to viewers’ outlook and view of life and the world he lives in when it doesn’t figure in the newscast he watches in any which way or form?