If you are a part of the news media, but did not take part in any of the decisions described herein, this does not apply to you.

Simply put, they go too far in their attempt to keep the public informed. Take the recent riot-like activites following a parade in New York City. It seems that an amateur cameraman caught the events on tape, which is admirable, because ot allows for positive identification of the offenders. What was done with this tape, however, is, in my opinion, a crime against the general public. This tape contained graphic images of human beings assaulting each other, and generally not being very nice to one another, but that's not my biggest problem. This tape showed several images of women who had been assaulted, who were crying, screaming, and begging for help, some of whose clothes had been forcibly removed by the assailants. Why was this put on TV? Who these women were, and exactly what they looked like is of little interest to anyone besides the police, and quite frankly, none of our damn business. Not to mention the fact that children may have seen it, but that's a different node entirely. This kind of dehumanizing behavior sickens me.

---

True, they do practice a good deal of incorrect reporting, but the reason I felt like noding this was because of the tape. Notice that the title is not The Only Reason the News Media Sucks. Whether we saw a nipple or whatever in the tape is inconsequential - it was invasion of privacy plain and simple. Do you think they asked all those women before putting them on TV half-naked and being assaulted? Personally, I have no idea, but I seriously doubt it. It was still none of our business who they were. I wouldn't have cared if they hadn't shown faces, as I, much like the rest of America, have been desensitized to this stuff by the media.

The media sucks because it tends to be no damn good at reporting. Its problem is not showing too much--I have yet to see a nipple or a pubic hair in the video from the riot in New York (and seriously, if the press sat on that video and refused to air it, we'd all be jumping up and down and hollering about "the people's right to know"). Its problem is not showing too little conservative bias (and hey, it's not like that video depicts the Downtrodden Masses in a shining light, does it?). The news media sucks because it has its priorities in the wrong place.

Here's my ongoing rant about the media's priorities: Remember that big tidal wave in July 1998 that killed 6,000 people in New Guinea? You don't? It sure seems like something you'd remember, doesn't it? Big, telegenic disaster--thousands of people dead--you sure you don't remember? Could it be because the three major networks were running a story about a cruise ship fire off the coast of Florida instead? A fire that killed no one and caused only minor damage? So why did a minor fire on a cruise ship trump a disaster that killed 6,000 people? First, the cruise ship industry does millions of dollars of business in America, and the media had to reassure wealthy Americans that they could continue to sail safely throughout the Caribbean. Second, it was much easier to get to Florida to get video than it was to get to New Guinea. Third, the tidal wave happened in an "unimportant" area of the world and only affected non-whites. There are no ratings to be had that way...