Although I have a resolution of “less screen time,” I’ve recently decided to watch the news when I eat breakfast in the morning. The chatter helps me wake up and I can get a quick scan of the weather and the day’s top stories. I want to be more on top of what is happening in the world, something that used to happen naturally as a Communication Journalism major in college.
But, I’m starting to think maybe a newspaper subscription would be a better time investment. You see, I’m beginning to know more about things I really don’t want to know more about and less about what I like to call “globally important.” Here are some examples:
1. Justin Bieber’s latest escapades: There is a time and place for the Biebs on TV, and that’s on E. Honestly, I now know more about his latest then I want to know about anyone (hope this kid figures it out before he or someone else gets hurt).
2. The Polar Vortex: Or whatever they’ve dubbed the latest freeze. I know it’s cold. I live in Minnesota for crying out loud. I know this may be big news to people in Florida, but give more meat to the story and less fluff. Tell me how many people are being affected. Give me more hard facts and statistics and less fancy names.
3. Sochi Security: Now, this one is big on my list. I’ve had to dig pretty deep to get into the why behind the what of the Olympics this year. I realize that the security threat is real and believe this topic is important. But I’m tired of anchors simply providing the basics. Maybe I’m not watching enough news, but I’d like more facts and details, less opinion.
I realize this isn’t a new trend. We’ve been seeing more soft news and less hard for years. And I realize that in order to keep the attention of the general population, there has to be a little fun and fluff. But I think it’s sad that my morning news provides more details about Bieber’s latest arrest than the security of the Olympics, or the state of Syria.
What do you think? Am I just watching the wrong networks?