• Get involved.
    We want your input!
    Apply for Membership and join the conversations about everything related to broadcasting.

    After we receive your registration, a moderator will review it. After your registration is approved, you will be permitted to post.
    If you use a disposable or false email address, your registration will be rejected.

    After your membership is approved, please take a minute to tell us a little bit about yourself.
    https://www.radiodiscussions.com/forums/introduce-yourself.1088/

    Thanks in advance and have fun!
    RadioDiscussions Administrators

Plane Crash at SFO

stewie said:
I read someone else comment on the flight not having many Americans on it so why so much coverage? That argument collapses on itself since its local to SFO, you can easily justify "wall to wall" coverage.
Click to expand...

That would have been me but you took one sentence out of context. The reasons I didn't feel wall-to-wall coverage was necessary (and this does not include SFO local stations) was that there were only two fatalities, both foreign. It was reported almost immediately there were many survivors and there was minimum damage to the ground. Although this was a tragic event for those involved it was not anywhere near a full-blown disaster such as the explosions and fire in Lac-Megantic, Quebec.

Airline crashes tend to be much more serious and spectacular and that's why the news covers them in greater depth than most other disasters. All we got out of the wall-to-wall coverage was a bunch of speculation and constant repetition of the few facts known at that time. IMHO that is not responsible reporting.

stewie said:
How many American's died in the runaway freight train?
Click to expand...

If it had been a passenger train loaded with Americans it would have received maximum coverage, and deservedly so. The fact that it was a freight, with apparently no crew aboard, and across the border made it a secondary story - never mind that it destroyed an entire town center and is thought to have killed upwards of 60 people. This was truly a huge disaster and deserved better coverage than it got (nationwide at least - I am guessing that the NE stations did give it sufficient coverage).

stewie said:
As for the cable outlets, what's going to draw more viewers? Middle of the day Saturday programming or breaking news?
Click to expand...

In my earlier statement I was specifically addressing the American networks coverage. NBC went to breaking news two times while I was watching and gave a good first look at what had happened. ABC apparently went wall-to-wall and that is what I thought exploitative and unnecessary.

I would have expected the full-time news organizations to cover the crash in much more detail than the networks given the relative minor severity of it. If the Asiana aircraft had struck a hanger, passenger terminal or a house-filled neighborhood then, of course, more coverage would be appropriate.
 
The Zimmerman trial is yet another minor and local event which is being paraded nationwide. In fact, MSNBC is apparently losing viewers because of their wall-to-wall coverage:

http://news.yahoo.com/behind-msnbc-ratings-decline-215742965.html

The trial does not affect anyone in my city or state and is only one of dozens of similar events that happen daily across the USA yet it is a lead story in virtually every version of local news.
 
I think most people here are missing the point of news. News means "what is new" or unusual. It's highly unusual for a 777 to crash, especially on a clear day with no wind shear or any other problems. Likewise, the George Zimmerman case is unusual because of the circumstances of the death of Trayvon Martin. The more unusual facts that come out of a case, the more play the story will get on newscasts and in the press.

On the other hand there are local events that are not noteworthy. Traffic accidents are not newsworthy unless they're 30-car pile-ups, and even those aren't so unusual during winter tule fog. House fires get just passing mention, usually they show the charred remains and ask for donations to the Red Cross, and that's the end of the story in the news cycle.
 
DavidKaye said:
I think most people here are missing the point of news. News means "what is new" or unusual.
Click to expand...

I disagree. News is the reporting of events which are likely to affect you in some way. News doesn't have to be, and most times isn't, unusual. The same events tend to happen over and over again.

DavidKaye said:
It's highly unusual for a 777 to crash, especially on a clear day with no wind shear or any other problems.
Click to expand...

It is highly unusual for any scheduled airliner to crash in the USA. That is one reason aircraft crashes get so much coverage. But what we are discussing here is "normal" mention of the facts versus "wall-to-wall" coverage from the outset and well before most facts are known.

DavidKaye said:
Likewise, the George Zimmerman case is unusual because of the circumstances of the death of Trayvon Martin. The more unusual facts that come out of a case, the more play the story will get on newscasts and in the press.
Click to expand...

I am not aware of any unusual facts coming out of the Zimmerman trial. Two guys get into a fight, one shoots the other, end of story. Except for the fact that one was Black and the other Hispanic this would have never been reported outside the state of Florida. This same type of event happens several times per week in the Phoenix metro area and never makes the national news let alone 24X7 coverage.

DavidKaye said:
On the other hand there are local events that are not noteworthy. Traffic accidents are not newsworthy unless they're 30-car pile-ups, and even those aren't so unusual during winter tule fog.
Click to expand...

Again, I disagree. Accidents which tie up major thoroughfares or otherwise impact commute traffic are definitely noteworthy but they don't tend to be covered 24X7. As soon as the event is cleared we drop it and move on. My local stations have broken into regular programming to report an accident on a major freeway, or one involving a police officer or anything that could result in delays to motorists. I would call all of those newsworthy.

DavidKaye said:
House fires get just passing mention, usually they show the charred remains and ask for donations to the Red Cross, and that's the end of the story in the news cycle.
Click to expand...

I agree that house fires are generally only newsworthy to the affected neighbors and indeed most are covered in that manner. Fires occurring to schools, public buildings and businesses are newsworthy because they can affect many more people.
 
landtuna said:
I disagree. News is the reporting of events which are likely to affect you in some way. News doesn't have to be, and most times isn't, unusual. The same events tend to happen over and over again.
Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster (considered the source authority on the American English language) and tradition disagree with you. I present the most-repeated definition of news:

"If a dog bites a man, it is not news; but if a man bites a dog that's news."
 
DavidKaye said:
landtuna said:
I disagree. News is the reporting of events which are likely to affect you in some way. News doesn't have to be, and most times isn't, unusual. The same events tend to happen over and over again.
Click to expand...

Merriam-Webster (considered the source authority on the American English language) and tradition disagree with you. I present the most-repeated definition of news:

"If a dog bites a man, it is not news; but if a man bites a dog that's news."
Click to expand...
Actually it's big news when dogs bite people. I hear about it on KGO and other places once in a while. Hosts will spend an hour on it. Ronn's done several hour shows on it. Ronn is weird about it though. He seems color prejudice. Every time a black or brown dog is involved in an attack, he has a different attitude than when a white dog is involved.
 
DavidKaye said:
Merriam-Webster (considered the source authority on the American English language) and tradition disagree with you. I present the most-repeated definition of news:

"If a dog bites a man, it is not news; but if a man bites a dog that's news."
Click to expand...

With all due respect to the editors of Merriam-Webster (who are only fellow humans after all) "man bites dog" would be News of the Weird, not mainstream news.
 
landtuna said:
stewie said:
I read someone else comment on the flight not having many Americans on it so why so much coverage? That argument collapses on itself since its local to SFO, you can easily justify "wall to wall" coverage.
Click to expand...
All we got out of the wall-to-wall coverage was a bunch of speculation and constant repetition of the few facts known at that time. IMHO that is not responsible reporting.
Click to expand...

Yes, and a lot of miss reporting of the known facts as they surfaced.
 
"Yes, and a lot of miss reporting of the known facts as they surfaced."
Check out The California Television Section, as to what KTVU did today!
 
DavidEduardo said:
landtuna said:
It has always seemed senseless to me that when an event such as this occurs some news source will go non-stop on it even though it doesn't affect near a majority of people and/or is an isolated incident.

I notice that there has been practically no national coverage of the tragic train crash and explosion in that little town in southern Quebec that literally destroyed the town. I realize it is across the border but the plane crash didn't have that many Americans on it either so how to judge which is more important?
Click to expand...

Adding to Scott's observations:

Nearly everyone travels by plane or would like to... I'd say of those who watch TV news, 100% share that commonality.

So they relate to airline accidents. Folks want to know how safe they are when they fly, whether the aircraft they fly on is airworthy, which airlines are better. That is also why we hear extensive coverage of air fare increases, baggage fees, etc. And why TV stations send a crew to the airport around holiday weekends... the subject matter connects with viewers.

Most people don't live near train tracks, so the attitude is often "well, thank God, that can't happen to me.

I often find people with fear of flying. I've never found someone with a fear of freight trains.
Click to expand...
Very late to this discussion, but nonetheless intrigued and informed by it. David's last line is valid. But as it relates to industrial cities, most found in the northeast as well as port cities such as Los Angeles, perhaps more people should be concerned about freight trains.

Increasingly large numbers of freight trains transport highly flammable, toxic and dangerous materials, many of which are capable of wiping out large areas, near and distant to crash sites.

My awareness and familiarity with this subject arise from being a member of a heritage railroad family (three generations likely to go on four) in the northeast.

Every day, hazardous materials pass through our communities by rail and most of us are very unaware. This post isn't intended to be contentious, but rather informative and relative to the discussion.
 
Correction: line 2 should read, "port cities such as Los Angeles, Seattle and San Francisco."
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Status
This thread has been closed due to inactivity. You can create a new thread to discuss this topic.
Back
Top Bottom