In addition, last week I went to an event held by the local energy efficiency group eMERGE titled Talk....as if Climate Change Mattered. I had a brief conversation with a couple of presenters about the role of media in climate discussions and was kinda distressed by what I considered their limited understanding. In particular, two of them seemed to not understand the limitations of video when it comes to discussing complex news stories.
In light of these two things, I thought I'd spend this weekend's Op Ed deconstructing last night's edition of the CBC National.
&&&&
What I'd my readers to understand is how much of the effort involved in doing television news is devoted to the craft of creating television---and how little is about presenting actual news.
To understand this point, consider the famous saying of Marshall McLuhan "The medium is the message". What he meant is that different mediums---such as tv, radio, newsprint, blogs, etc---all bring with them specific characteristics that dramatically effect the sort of information that they convey.
 |
| Marshall McLuhan in 1945 (handsome devil, wasn't he?) Public domain photo from Library and Archives Canada. Image c/o the Wiki Commons. |
To cite one specific example, I wrote a weekly column at the Guelph Mercury for several years. Creating a daily newspaper was a tremendously complex enterprise that involved the sale of advertising, collecting news, and, amalgamating them into a form that could be printed and distributed on a daily basis. The amount of news that could be printed was directly related to the amount of advertising sold. If the paper didn't sell much advertising, it couldn't afford to print much news. And, if it didn't present enough copy that people wanted to read it wouldn't be able to sell much advertising.
This two-sided dynamic resulted in significant limitations that publishers, editors, and, pressmen were always trying to negotiate with more-or-less success. The end result in my case was that the editor decided that my column would have to be about 800 words---no less, and, no more.
Writing anything useful in 800 words is something of a discipline, almost like writing Haiku. It was really difficult to bring in new concepts or discuss nuance. In contrast, writing this blog is a lot easier because I can use as many words as needed. In addition, I have the space to bring in visual aids like graphs, photos, and, videos, which allows me to explain things much more easily than if I just have rely upon my ability to create "word pictures" using English prose.
&&&&
Television is another medium that dramatically influences content. And in particular it has a tremendous bias towards the visual and emotions. It also tends to hate abstract information. The absolute worst thing---according to television---is the dreaded "talking head". (That's the situation where an expert discusses a complex issue in picky detail. It's supposed to be profoundly boring.)
Let me illustrate this point using last night's edition of the CBC news program.
The lead story was the French leader's debate that ran from 1:06 to 4:08. The directorial "push" was obviously aimed at conflict. This included language like "combative right from the start" and talked about people hammering Andrew Scheer on the abortion issue. The "colour commentary" that was brought in discussed the debate like it was a prize fight. At the end, the "clip with legs" was an individual voter telling Jagmeet Singh that he should get rid of his turban and "look like a real Canadian".
The thing to remember is that each and every single scene that you see in a news show has been specifically chosen from many others because of its emotional content. Was that guy who told Singh to lose the turban indicative of the sort of reception he was getting in Quebec? Or was it just one isolated nutbar? We'll never know, but the director of last night's CBC news chose to include it because it is something that is startling and bound to raise strong feelings among the viewers.
The thing to remember is that each and every single scene that you see in a news show has been specifically chosen from many others because of its emotional content. Was that guy who told Singh to lose the turban indicative of the sort of reception he was getting in Quebec? Or was it just one isolated nutbar? We'll never know, but the director of last night's CBC news chose to include it because it is something that is startling and bound to raise strong feelings among the viewers.
At about 4:08 we got a 30 second "teaser" about the "Face-to-Face" segment between Elizabeth May and several "undecided voters". Again, the clip is described in the same terms as a prize fight: "went face-to-face with voters" and "voters take the mike, Elizabeth May takes the hot seat in about 15 minutes".
At about 4:40 we get to see a temper tantrum by Donald Trump during a news conference with the president of Finland. He complains bitterly about the House and its investigation of his dealings with the Ukraine. It is real news, but it is also very "visual" because Trump is a monkey that is willing to dance in front of the cameras.
At 6:22 we get to see a segment where a member of the US House of representatives meets with her constituents in a restaurant to talk about why she decided to support impeachment. She has some reasoned arguments and people respond favourably. But the media gave "equal time" to a much smaller number of protesters outside who were proclaiming their support for Trump. Instead of focusing on the speech's details or the fact that a lot more people were listening to it instead of waving signs protesting, the story becomes about the conflict between different factions in America.
Again, remember that we viewers will never ever be able to see the majority of footage that was discarded during the editing process.
&&&&
 |
| Want to advertise your business or event? Contact the Back-Grounder---affordable rates! Email it at thecloudwalkingowl@gmail.com . |
&&&&
After that we get a series of short, mostly factual, news stories one after another:
- 8:49 Police suicides
- 11:17 Death of farmed salmon in Newfoundland
- 13:27 Educational support workers potentially going on strike in Ontario
- 14:27 Delayed production of this year's flu vaccine
- 14:33 Concern that a new movie about the "Joker" might inspire violence
&&&&
At 17:08 we get to the night's main event: a cage match between Elizabeth May from the Green Party and five "undecided voters" from across the country. I really want to emphasize a few important points about this segment.
First, at almost a half hour in length, it is by far the longest part of the entire 45 minute newscast.
Second, it consists of five individuals that the show's producers have specifically selected for this segment. They consisted of:
- a young mother concerned about affordable housing and childcare
- a farmer concerned about climate change and agriculture
- a First Nation elder from Old Crow in the Yukon concerned about climate change in both the North and the rest of the world
- a software developer worried about high-tech workers leaving the country
- a retired teacher concerned about how the government can get people to take climate change seriously
It's tremendously important for viewers to remember that these people were not a representative sample of the public. Instead, they were chosen because of their dramatic value to the show.
The other thing to remember is that none of these people were experts. They are simply "ordinary folks" without any sort of specialized knowledge that they could bring to bear on complex government policy. This means that they wouldn't be able to articulate any sort of informed question to ask Elizabeth May. But that's not what they were selected to do. Instead, they are there to be emotional and in the process evoke emotions from the viewers.
The other thing to remember is that none of these people were experts. They are simply "ordinary folks" without any sort of specialized knowledge that they could bring to bear on complex government policy. This means that they wouldn't be able to articulate any sort of informed question to ask Elizabeth May. But that's not what they were selected to do. Instead, they are there to be emotional and in the process evoke emotions from the viewers.
To understand this point, consider the content of what was broadcast. At no point did anyone speak in anything but broad generalities. But as anyone who has ever tried to understand public policy knows, the "devil is in the details". Government is all about the numbers. In contrast, television is all about emotion. Remember that fact. Last night might have been "good tv", but did it actually tell you anything at all that would help you decide which party had the best policy?
But the emotion was there. Indeed, at the last segment the farmer actually ended up in tears of---I don't know what, perhaps frustration---over the need to deal with climate change and agriculture (43:54).
And if the emotion wasn't bubbling away on it's own, the host---Rosemary Barton---was quite happy to intervene and "stir the pot". In the section with the Elder from Old Crow, she found that there wasn't enough "friction" happening between the "undecided" Elder and Elizabeth May. So Barton intruded and asked May to tell the audience "what they had to give up" in order to save the planet. (May responded, reasonably, that they'd have to give up a lot more if they refused to do anything at all---.)
&&&&
I usually talk about subscribing to the Back-Grounder, but if you want to make a lump sum payment that works too. (Thanks Werner, for being so awesome!) PayPal and Patreon make any sort of payment easy.
&&&&
I'm not so much of a fogey that I won't watch television news. Sometimes a clip of video is much, much better than the best fact-stuffed "deep dive" written article. Sometimes I like to eat doughnuts too. But I try to base my diet on meat (or tofu), veggies, and, rice instead of doughnuts---otherwise I know I will start to look more like Homer Simpson than I already do. It's the same thing with news sources. People are much better off learning the "picky details" of most stories than they would be ruining their appetites with sickly-sweet emotional coverage. And above all else, they need to know the difference between the two. This is why I choose to read most of my news instead of watching it in video form.
&&&&
No comments:
Post a Comment