While traveling recently, I watched some television. Even though I don’t own a TV, I now and then catch fragments of programs that someone or another has posted on their blogs. Or I hear about something said on one of the talk shows. So, I’m not entirely naive of what’s going on in television these days. But I was a bit surprised when I tuned in CNN last week.
Among other things, they aired a segment on the student protests in London. What surprised me was how little information about the protests they managed to convey during the several minutes they allocated to them. The announcer kept repeating that CNN had expected the protests would be over by then. So, the headline might have been, “Protests Continue Despite CNN’s Wild Newsroom Speculations”. But the announcer said almost nothing about what the students were protesting, and absolutely nothing about what the students wanted to make happen.
Until now, when I’ve heard people complain about how superficial the TV news is, I’d been thinking they meant it was superficial because it neither raised nor answered questions like, “Who are the leaders of the student protests”?, or “How much hardship would the budget cuts create for the average student?”, or even “What technologies are being used to organize the protests?” But CNN wasn’t even making decent mention of the fact the students were protesting budget cuts to education. How can you turn your cameras on a few thousand students out in the streets and not be reasonably curious about why they are there?
So now I’m wondering if CNN is always like that or if I just happened to catch them on a bad day, so to speak?