So the good news is that Spaniards (at least from the small population sample I've encountered) watch a lot of news on T.V.
When I sit down with my host family for lunch, they turn on the news. When I sit down for dinner, the news is on again. As a journalism major, this doesn't really bother me, as I'm gaining an understanding for how the Spanish press functions.
But believe me, it's a lot different than the press in the United States.
On a daily basis, I'll watch stories with amateur video showing police beating citizens in Venezuela and people throwing what looks like fireballs at police in Ukraine. I've seen the naked bodies of the singers in the Russian punk band "Pussy Riot." I've grimaced as cameras zoomed in on drunken youth trying to barf after consuming a little too much at botellón (botellón is basically the equivalent of a pregame, where there are public places in Spain where you can drink). I've seen the bloody organs of people undergoing surgery.
These are images that I have never seen on American news stations. And it made me think, "Why haven't I seen these types of violent and graphic images before?" The United States has a very independent press, and I couldn't think of any laws restricting the types of images shown on T.V.
So, I emailed Jeff Unger, a wonderful and informative journalism professor I've had at the University of Illinois. I asked him if it is essentially an ethical issue for T.V. stations to decide what images to show to audiences. Here is his response:
"I'm sure you've heard the saying (not heard as frequently as it used to be) about American TV news: "If it bleeds, it leads."
I think American TV in general tends to be less 'blood and guts' than TV in many European nations, Mexico and South America. I don't know about Australia, and I'm guessing Canada is much less prone to graphic news photos.
Showing those images is not, however, restricted by our FCC; what's shown pretty much is up to station management in the U.S. Big city news (WGN is a good example) is more graphic than small-town news (the stations in Champaign-Urbana, for example).
Of course, Chicago has much more day-to-day violent crime, and the feeling among producers for the stations there is that the audiences are accustomed to the nightly shootings and other forms of violence, and therefore, they are somewhat inured to seeing it night after night. It's disheartening to think people are so accustomed to violence that they become numb to witnessing the result of it on their TV screens.
Bottom line: It IS an ethical issue, insofar as each station pretty much is on its own in terms of deciding what to show."
So now I wonder — which approach is better/more informative?
As I become accustomed to the way news is reported in Spain, like Jeff said, I am becoming "numb" to the graphic images I am seeing. I now expect them, and the violence I'm seeing doesn't shock me as much.
Although I cannot understand everything that is being said on the news programs here, I do not think the stories give as much informational content as those in the United States. The segments are very short, and many times, if the stations don't have a lot of video or image content, they will repeatedly show the same images as B-roll throughout the segment.
So, I'm favoring the American approach to the news. But is it beneficial to see the extent of some violence, such as how violent the protests in Ukraine are? Does that make people pay more attention? Does it draw more interest? Does it make people understand the situation better?
What do you think?
No comments:
Post a Comment