Wednesday, February 11, 2009

Media Overload

I think it's time the media left those Victorians affected by the bushfire alone.

There's a fine line between news and entertainment and it's now being crossed.

We don't need every channel's breakfast show, their mid-morning show, the news and current affairs show represented at the bush fires. How about just one reporter for each channel.

We should give those affected by the fires some privacy and not hound them to show their emotions on TV for the sake of ratings. If people want to share their story, fair enough, but no more insensitive questions please reporters.

As an Australian, I want to be informed about the fires and those affected so I can sympathise, share their grief and help them in any way that I can. But I don't want to be "entertained" by it. It's time for the media to back off.

I liken it to those people who drive to disaster areas for a good old gawk at people's misery. It's wrong.


  1. What I think is that we need to see some investigation into the victims of the media coverage. Personally, I know a lot of people who've been traumatised and depressed by the situation in Victoria, and by the round-the-clock saturation coverage. My neighbour from up the hill came down visiting about two nights ago, purely so he could sit down and play with my three kids for an hour or so -- because he was so damned depressed by the news.

    I think the media has a lot to answer for, and I think they should immediately begin investigating the situation. And then when enough people are traumatised by media coverage of people traumatised by media coverager, they should investigate THAT too.

    That should keep 'em away from the poor bloody Victorians, anyhow.

  2. Exactly Kimmy, I was just saying the same thing to my wife. Up here, that channel 9 thing thats on right now is being simulcast on the radio!! WTF! talk about overload! We switched stations.

    Unfortunately in this country, the media goes into a sort of feeding frenzy and milk an event for everything they can get. I have gotten the impression that the media would like nothing more than for the bush fires to continue! They're ghouls!

    Time to stop

  3. and the media is the same everywhere. it's all about ratings. they don't really care about the misery of these people. it's really sad, the depths the human race will go to for a buck

  4. Same goes here, of course. It is something that began with the first newspapers and has only worsened as communications have become instantaneous.

    It works for them, though. People want to see disasters, especially big ones. If a large percentage of the public didn't tune in for that stuff, coverage would definitely be reduced.

  5. It is the world over, the news channels and the papers are not interested in the disaster they just need to fill minutes and pages easily and a disaster suits them fine. What is sad about the media is that they never cover the poorer countries as much when disaster strikes as though their lives mean nothing.

  6. Yeah - it is sickening at the moment. I'd had enough of it on the weekend, but these arseholes just keep going. The worst IMHO are the journos who interview people with the express desire to get the interviewee to shed a tear and then offer them mock comfort. A bullet is too good for them.