On Seciond Thought
June 18, 2012
On second thought, I wonder if Loretta is more offended by the number of crime reports rather than their actual descriptions. Sometimes our imagining of what we hear can be more lurid than what we actually are hearing and seeing. I don’t remember network news reporting being all that shocking. (Am I too jaded?) Case in point: the Jerry Sandusky trial. All I have ever heard reported concerning the allegations by the eight victims is very general with no real grisly detail.
(If you want to hear of allegations concerning our own little Jeff City sports scandal stay tuned for my next LTTE appearing in the News Tribune later this week.)
Of course news reporting throughout human history from Homer to Pelley has followed the dictum, “If it bleeds, it leads.” Producers know people are more drawn to short-term stories of sex, disaster and violence. Any deeper analysis is just too boring for the average couch potato waiting for the reality show following the news and weather.
In response to:
Why is it that our media — radio, television and newspapers — feel that it is necessary to describe every lurid detail of a crime?