For you journalists out there--

[Maxie Zeus]

Good evening. Today's lighter link: Michael Kinsley delivering typically clever article (http://slate.msn.com/?id=2058044&device=) on new trend in newscasting: anchors using clipped, headlinish sentences to deliver information. Viewers wondering what has become of past, present and future when verb-tenses disappear. Also, a look at the "toss" whereby anchor gives the reporter's news when introducing the reporter. Michael?

[The Mad Hatter]

(reading it)

Man, if the author wasn't so deft and hilarious I would be shocked into silence. Why the bloody hell is this necessary? How much time are they REALLY saving by not using linking verbs? It takes me less than a tenth of a second to say "is!" Yeesh. My respect for CNN just went down another notch, as if their new Headline News wasn't bad enough. I get a headache just watching all that useless, contextless garbage float by.

Then again, I was silly enough to get a master's in English, so perhaps I'm a bit too attached to grammar...

[Failure]

ugh. that sick. what they thinking? grammar important. can hardly read without getting headache.

[killercroc]

If broadcast journalism is going to borrow anything from Print it should be their quality of reporting, reporting actual news, and going more in-depth.

News stories today(and for the last 50 years) are written in what's called "reverse pyramid." That basically means that you put the big news at the top of the story and get less detailed as you go. So we get a headline that says:

Bush Kicks Osama's Skanky Butt So if you just scanned the headlines, you would at least know the jist of the story. Osama got his butt kicked by Bush.

Then the first paragraph would go:
Bush kicked the crap out of the mid eastern madman Osama Bin Laden late Friday night in Kabul. The no-holds-barred grudge match took place in front of 500 drunken marines and lasted 3 rounds. You could read the first paragraph and know enough to discuss it around the water cooler.

Then you'd have a quote by Bush: "He was stronger than I thought he'd be," said a jubilant Bush, "but body odor isn't everything. It was all over once I pulled the Texas Titty Twister on him."

Then the story would go on to give blow by blow, and talk about the history of the rivalry, etc.

My point is that TV news give us the headline, sometimes the first paragraph and then some footage of his quote or the fight and that's it. Broadcast journalism sucks anyway, so I don't think it makes too much difference.

All the news you get from your nightly newcast would fit into the top half of the front page of a newspaper. And half the stuff the local news tells you is totally useless and in no way news.

Signed:
A somewhat bitter and snobby print journalist.

[Failure]

Not to be picky or anything, but I think the term is "inverted pyramid." Good points though. Broadcast news will never get into detail except under extra-ordinary circumstances. Viewers just don't have the attention span anymore to deal with it.

[Maxie Zeus]

Great discussion of the pyramid (inverted, reversed, upsie-diddly-down, whatever) by croc. Love the news story example, too! :D

[killercroc]

Originally posted by Failure
Not to be picky or anything, but I think the term is "inverted pyramid." Good points though. Broadcast news will never get into detail except under extra-ordinary circumstances. Viewers just don't have the attention span anymore to deal with it. Yeah, that's right, it's inverted. I've been out of school to long!

And if they do get in depth, it's usually way overdone.

Like your new sig, BTW.

[DR. BELCH]

So you're telling me that the modern journalist talks like the Tasmanian Devil? "Why for you bury me in the cold cold ground?" What next, Diane Sawyer and Tom Brokaw communicating through grunts and flatulence?
The inverted pyramid got its start in Civil War days, when news was sent by telegraph. Frequently the enemy would slice the wires, so the most important items were sent first, followed by lesser important ones.
It was still a pretty primitive system, though. Often news still took months to reach a destination, and verifying sources/information was a chore. Unverified rumors spread like cancer and were seldom retracted. Case in point: the papers were reporting the assassination of Abraham Lincoln in some areas a good 12 hours before Booth fired the shot....

[Singin' Stray Cat]

If you want a good book on this subject, read "Amusing Ourselves to Death" by Neil Postman. Not only does he give the news media a thorough scourging, but televangelists, educational programs for kids, and generally how television has drastically changed the way we communicate information. (In short, it's a sort of study of epistemology. )

Speaking of fragmented conversation...I wish I could type more details about the book, but as of this moment I'm juggling 3 Instant Messages! :eek:

[Elven Moon]

Thinking hard. No use verbs. Head hurt. Who need grammar?

[The Mad Hatter]

"Amusing Ourselves to Death" is a GREAT book. I'd highly reccomend it to anyone who's curious as to how the various media has been affecting our society.