-
-
Related
It's a sad fact, but like widget makers, journalists think seriously about their work, and wonder where it went wrong, and how to make it better.
I do, though most frequently this takes the form of the muttered reproach in the taxi home, rattling up Third Avenue, heading to TVNZ's Spanish Harlem Bureau (aka my apartment) and thinking, "If only I'd added that shot," or "I should have said X, as opposed to Y."
The rock writer Robert Palmer (for a music scribe this is a very regrettable name indeed, somewhat like attempting to be a literary journalist and being called Tom Stoppard) once wrote of the protean rock/country musician Jerry Lee Lewis that he had never allowed himself the luxury of self-doubt. It's a nice phrasing, and one that differentiates the difference between rock'n'roll and journalism... as practised by some.
Of all media, I think television journalism is the closest to making music. Performance skills are required. It relies on mastering often unwieldy technology. It's personalised, and taste-based. What works for one person won't work for someone else because of their tie or hairstyle.
And it's fluid. When I first got into television, and royally stank the joint up (those who think I still stink are permitted to harrumph here), I often begged for a simple equation by which I could reproduce what was required. "There's no formula," I was told. Unhelpful to a struggling neophyte, but true also.
Today I'm still often perplexed about how to tell a story within the limits of one minute and thirty seconds, the amount of time you're typically given. Pictures win, that's certain. Say it once, say it twice, say it three times; that's also useful.
But I wonder if the way people watch news isn't changing. News is getting smaller. I read recently (and now can't find the reference, so you can discount this if you see fit) that in the US, the average length of a local news package is sixty seconds.
I also believe viewers are becoming more critical. They're more visually-literate. They're able to make associations in a way the first or second generation of television viewers wouldn't have done, and to do so quickly. They're tired of the shopworn modes: the evil father, for example, the sobbing mother, and bewildered kids.
Of course, many stories can be boiled down to exactly these constituent elements. But then the father is found to have had ADHD as a child, and the mother's on crack... Stories are often like life, producing few genuine villains, but many villainous fools. This is not to diminish their crimes, by the way.
Which is where paradox, and counter-intuition are useful. Stories aren't inherent, they're a product of how we understand the world. So if the way we think is dull, our stories will be dull also. When I arrived in the US seven years ago, the amount of counter-intuitive commentary, much of it produced by neo-conservative writers, opened my eyes.
Democrats actually betray the working class by pandering to their lowest urges. Because the President is not an intellectual, he's a moralist. War is the best way to bring peace. September 11 killed irony... Hooray! America is different, thus an American empire will have less 'empire-like' characteristics.
One line I kept repeating during that post-9/11 miasma was from Slavoj Zizek , a left-wing (okay Marxist) intellectual cult figure who could beat the best counter-intuitive neo-con hands down. While everyone was prating about how after the World Trade Centre attacks, America had woken up to the world, Zizek suggested a somnambulant USA, one that had fallen into the slumber of its own power and exceptionalism. That now seems more accurate.
There's a fabulous takedown piece on Zizek in a recent 'The New Republic', by the way, by Adam Kirsch. Kirsch accuses Zizek of being a fascist and anti-Semite. He may be right, if a little hysterical. All the same, Zizek's means, and his dialectical approach are still productive. It's something journalists might ask themselves every day, "What if what's happening is the complete opposite of what everyone else is saying?"
Forgive me, all this is tendentious, possibly moralistic, and (definitely) onanistic. Theorising about this trade is like explaining a fart; you know when it's done successfully, the rest is just waste material. I'm now at 106th Street. Time to disembark.
Have you got an opinion on the issues that Tim discusses? Share them on the message board below.
World News Video
-
Dangerous rush to Everest summit (1:59)
-
Dozens killed in Syrian massacre (2:09)
-
'King of Romance' competes in Eurovision (1:46)
Add a Comment:
Post new commentNewzgal said on 2010-01-03 @ 15:46 NZDT: Report abusive post
Hi Tim, great blog. I agree right wingers have a Hobbesian view of existence, and like many I welcomed Obama’s presidency. However I always watched Fox News just to see how they were framing up the news (which far too many people rely on). I now find it more useful than ever to tune into the right just incase there is a kernel of truth in their rants as it seems the media and world have been far too soft on the new president and democrats, perfect recipe to slip things in!
jackdoitcrawford said on 2009-09-11 @ 23:24 NZDT: Report abusive post
Please don't label all people you disagree with, and put them in the same camp. Ayn Rand was pro abortion, achievement, reason, freedom, capitalism and happiness. She was definitely neither a conservative nor a libertarian. She also didn't want to live under a dictatorship. I see nothing wrong with this at all.
Kiwi in USA said on 2009-09-11 @ 17:58 NZDT: Report abusive post
I would have to disagree with Tim saying Bill ORielly is a right wing loon as if it were. He is defintly a independet and he always tells his viewers that. I know that there is plenty of loons like rush but come on, Obama is really turning America in the wrong direction. He has spent more money than all the presidents have combined. America is in trillions of dollars worth of debt.