Anyone watching Fox news right now?

[richiebaseball]

Actually, I think it's good for the viewers of that particular "news" station to see what it's really like in a war zone. Which is more effective: hearing about missile attacks, gun fire, and bombs dropping, or seeing them in living color?

I confess, I don't get it. This was a perfectly normal and innocent conversation about why journalists do what they do in the face of danger. It could easily have been a CNN or CBS or BBC reporter. But because it was a Fox reporter you jumped at the opportunity to get in a little bash.

You know, I don't normally watch Fox News but I just received my little Nielsen notebook and for the next week I think I may have to tune in some so I can try to give them a little ratings boost. I figure if it bothers you so much, it can't be all bad.

 

[wvrevy]

I confess, I don't get it. This was a perfectly normal and innocent conversation about why journalists do what they do in the face of danger. It could easily have been a CNN or CBS or BBC reporter. But because it was a Fox reporter you jumped at the opportunity to get in a little bash.

You know, I don't normally watch Fox News but I just received my little Nielsen notebook and for the next week I think I may have to tune in some so I can try to give them a little ratings boost. I figure if it bothers you so much, it can't be all bad.

My point, since you apparently missed it, was that it is a much more visceral experience to actually see this person (the journalist) in danger than it is simply to hear or read about it.

But hey...thanks for making it personal. Knew I could depend on you!

 

[TheDisneyTraveler06]

I don't understand why they do this!

 

[Laurajean1014]

We have the ability to have high quality cameras almost anywhere these days. I don't see the value of having a reporter in harms way anymore.

I totally agree.

 

[richiebaseball]

My point, since you apparently missed it, was that it is a much more visceral experience to actually see this person (the journalist) in danger than it is simply to hear or read about it.

But hey...thanks for making it personal. Knew I could depend on you!

So that was your point? And here I thought it was just an opportunity for a cheap shot at Fox News and their "viewers." My bad.

 

[Laurajean1014]

Another thread gone ugly......

 

[wvrevy]

I don't understand why they do this!

Depends on which "they" you mean. To the reporters, I would say it is like a calling, not all that dissimilar to that which draws people to the priesthood or to teaching disadvantaged children. It is a noble profession, and they are risking their lives so that people like us - who aren't in danger - can know what the real story is.

If the "they" you are referring to are the news stations themselves...simple answer: $$$. Take the war and the station in question out of the equation entirely. Which got more notice in the public: Anderson Cooper's live reports during Katrina...or the Weather Channel's reports from their studio? Higher ratings mean more money...which is why news organizations always have people "on the scene".

 

[Miss Jasmine]

I'm a journalist. I photograph and write. Writing is pretty safe, you seldom if ever really need to get yourself in the middle of things.

Not true. Print journalists (even those who are not photojournalists) also put themselves in danger. They are in the same war-torn areas. So yes a concert writer is pretty safe, but other print journalists are put in danger getting embedded with troops and such, travelling to areas that have been affected by natural disasters, etc.

 

[Saxsoon]

I'll never forget watching the hurricanes last year (think it was Katrina maybe?) and Anderson Cooper reporting live during the brunt of it outside his hotel. Then on live TV the hotel sign comes crashing down almost on top of them. Sadly, I was enthralled by it and kept watching.

Wow, it just seems to be human nature to watch these things. I mean, I watch the world's most amazing videos and Maximum Exposure every morning to see the that type of stuff. I do think it is better to put a human face on it, it makes it seems less cold and personal. It put you there when you can see the face right there in the foreground.

 

[ducklite]

Not true. Print journalists (even those who are not photojournalists) also put themselves in danger. They are in the same war-torn areas. So yes a concert writer is pretty safe, but other print journalists are put in danger getting embedded with troops and such, travelling to areas that have been affected by natural disasters, etc.

I was speaking of my situation.

That said, I do believe that in general writers are safer in war/catastrophe zones than photographers. They often can extract themselves when things get really hot without losing their story--write from the sidelines so to speak. Because the camera is a visual medium, leaving before the action really begins is simply going to defeat the purpose of the camera being there in teh first place.

Anne

 

[phorsenuf]

Another thread gone ugly......

Yep, which is why I essentially walked away. Like someone else said it could have been any station, it just so happened I flipped on FOX. So sorry that is such a wrong thing to do!
I don't need to "see" war, my son is off fighting one as we speak.
All I was doing was commenting on the reporter and the fighting around him and his demeaner not the stand of the news station so wvrevy, please go take your agenda somewhere else as this was not the intention of the thread, ok.
Not everybody who watches FOX is a loser as you would like to think.

 

[wvrevy]

Yep, which is why I essentially walked away. Like someone else said it could have been any station, it just so happened I flipped on FOX. So sorry that is such a wrong thing to do!
I don't need to "see" war, my son is off fighting one as we speak.
All I was doing was commenting on the reporter and the fighting around him and his demeaner not the stand of the news station so wvrevy, please go take your agenda somewhere else as this was not the intention of the thread, ok.
Not everybody who watches FOX is a loser as you would like to think.

Nor did I say they were. What I did say is that - since Fox caters to the right - the people watching should get to see what their ideals and actions have caused. As I stated later in the thread...anyone that supports what is happening ought to have the guts to watch it. It's one thing to read or hear about "collateral damage"...quite another to see it exploding on your television screen.

Besides, I've already addressed this. The only people pulling this topic back in that direction are those of you complaining because I had the ever-loving audacity to make a slight comment about Fox News editorial slant. But as long as you keep bringing it up, I'm more than willing to address it.

 

[Mugg Mann]

Golf4Food;

We're still waiting for those scientific studies about Fox News that you cited earlier. I'd very much like to see what you talked about before.

Thanking you in advance...again!