America’s News: Informative or Entertaining?

I woke up this morning to my local news station informing me of John Mark Karr’s meal he consumed on the airplane to the United States. Is it just me or does anyone else think this is absolutely unnecessary information? I don’t think my day will be missing an essential component if I don’t know what Karr ate on his meal to the U.S. I think I’ll function just fine, thank you.

This incident made me think, why in the world would someone in the news media field think that that was pertinent information? I understand that in providing a lavish meal it could aid in Karr providing more insight and information to the authorities about his alleged involvement in the JonBenet Ramsey murder – but do I need to know that he had Valrhona chocolate cake as his dessert to this extravagant meal? These tidbits are not the only thing that bothers me – it’s the whole story in general. I think what I have a problem with is the amount of coverage it gets on a day to day basis. I’m sure almost everybody reading this article agrees with me on that point. The death of JonBenet Ramsey was tragic but where do you draw the line from necessary and important from useless and exploitating? It seems the news media outlet is having some problem in deferring the line. Now, we recently have found out that Karr had no involvement in the Ramsey murder, thus, allowing the media to cover this discovery in 20 some odd ways to boost ratings.

This obviously isn’t the first time something like this has happened in the news media. We saw it happen more recently with Michael Jackson. Yes, because he was such a huge iconic figure for American culture, as a society we feel this necessity to know what’s going on. But I hardly think it’s appropriate to know word for word what goes on in the courtroom of this pop singer’s hearing. We don’t need to know what the family is feeling and thinking every second. We already know it’s a stressful and unnerving time for them. We don’t need to badger them and remind them why they’re in the situation they are in.

Perhaps the most debatable situation where news coverage was so extreme was for the scandal surrounding President Bill Clinton when he was in office. As a voting American, I do feel it was appropriate for the public to have some basis provided when information of the relationship involving Monica Lewinsky and President Bill Clinton began to surface. However, I think the media began to scrutinize every single detail of the Clinton marriage and began making stories when there weren’t stories to be told. I didn’t need to know that the Clinton family whisked away to Martha’s Vineyard for a family getaway. Maybe they wanted to get away from the news media so they would not be the butt of anymore skewed news stories.

Celebrities, as in any case, are always the safe bet to go to when an interesting and juicy story is on demand. The first time I remember getting avidly involved in the news was in the murder trial for O.J. Simpson. I remember watching it every single waking moment on the television sitting next to my mother who was so immersed in his story. Yes, it is a tragic situation but at what point did it start to become entertainment? Why do the tragic happenings of people in our society, our world for that matter, become so interesting to the common 9-5 worker? Are our lives that boring, that mundane, that we have to look to the tragic news of other people in order to get our fix? Let’s face it, most, if not all news is about something tragic and sad happening to another. That’s the only way most people get hooked – their heart strings need to be tugged.

Now, this is not to say I didn’t feel sad and upset about the death of Princess Di or John F. Kennedy, Jr., but I don’t think I need to know about every single event that led up to their death. I’m sure this scores huge ratings for the various news broadcast systems but is that the right thing to do? Should you take advantage of other peoples’ misery and sadness in order to have higher ratings? Do the ends really justify the means? Everyone on the news are human beings, just like the viewers – they do not need to be sucked out of life just for a great news story. Is it really that great to know what someone eats on an airplane to America? I guess another way to look at it is, is it okay to be entertained by a news story as well as feel it is necessary to know all the information? Does that balance between entertainment and informative even exist in the news world?!

It’s so hard to say it shouldn’t be that way because our society and culture have become so dependent on doing things only for the betterment of yourselves. Don’t get me wrong – I’m not saying the news media or our society is outrageously corrupt – what I am saying is that it seems to me that there are a number of ways a story or message could be dealt with. The way I have been seeing it dealt with for the majority of my life seems to be a waste of time and full of useless information.

So, how can I talk all this talk without saying what it is that I want the news to tell me about? I want to know what’s happening down south to all people that were left devastated because of last year’s hurricanes. I want to know about the people suffering in Pakistan because of the tragic earthquake that hit much of that country towards the end of 2005. I want to know what’s being done to ease tensions of flying in the Americas and overseas? I want to know what President Bush is doing to help bring down soaring gas prices? I want to know what I NEED to know, not what I should be entertained with while all these other issues go unnoticed. I shouldn’t have to look for these important news stories. I think they should be faithfully followed and have as much coverage, if not more, than the celebrity “hook-ups” and “break-ups.” You know something’s wrong with the news when news is considered to be Brad Pitt and Jennifer Aniston’s divorce. Of course I was shook up with the Hollywood king and queen’s divorce, but cooooome on! Did it have to get significant airtime on CNN? I think not.