Earthquake and the media

[EJK]

Some people are saying that the media (closeup, News, Campbell live) is covering the news to sell information for dollars (i.e. attention for advertisements).

True or False, Discuss.

To be honest I'm quite disgusted about their opinions, by saying that the media is all about dollars and cents. The point I'm disgusted about is how prejudical they are (or am I?) by not seeing the other side.

Whats your thought? Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

[Virago]

Every business is about dollars and cents.

[=cJ=]

They're media/press.

They cover any event for money.

[Toaster]

Every business is about dollars and cents.

And so are all those buying into construction companies on the hope they will win major contracts in the rebuild work needed.

Yes they report news, but they dont do it for free.

[Oakie]

Chicken / egg? The more advertising the program generates, the more resources they get to report the news in future. Reporting the news in a publicly pleasing manner gives them more advertising to get more resources ....

[Oakie]

The point I'm disgusted about is how prejudical they are (or am I?) by not seeing the other side.

What is the 'other side'? The people who weren't affected overly much (like my street). "Meanwhile in Daytona Place, residents reported nothing much happened." Pretty boring news really.

Awww hang on ... is the 'other side' you speak of the people complaining about then media? If so ... I retract my comment above. As you were...

Oakie goes to hide under a rock ... or behind a sand volcano as they are way cooler

[tigertim20]

Some people are saying that the media (closeup, News, Campbell live) is covering the news to sell information for dollars (i.e. attention for advertisements).

True or False, Discuss.

To be honest I'm quite disgusted about their opinions, by saying that the media is all about dollars and cents. The point I'm disgusted about is how prejudical they are (or am I?) by not seeing the other side.

Whats your thought? Enlighten me if I'm wrong.

Any form of media that fails to cover the earthquake loses custom to those that do. so No, I dont think so at all, media is about current events, and if you arent covering them, why the fuck do you produce a media product?
Having said that, There is no doubt it increases the value of advertising, such an event attracts those who dont usually pay attention to current events, thus, the advertising during coverage has a wider audience, better exposure, and is essentially more valuable. its how the world works get over it

[TonyB]

You could also agrue that they are preforming a service. We all want to see what's happened- by showing extensive coverage they are cutting down on the number of 'rubber neckers'.

Funnily enough, if you drive through suburban Chch you can drive for miles and see almost no evidence of the earthquake at all. I've been doing the rounds today inspecting buildings for my clients, and even when you drive through some of the hardest hit suburbs, you would have to know where to go to find the pockets of badly damaged streets and houses.

When we had no power and were forced to listen to reports on talkback radio, I nearly rang them and accused them of over sensationalising the whole thing- the damage in my area was so minor. Then I started hearing from freinds- one who's hose had broken in half, another who's almost new house had sunk about 2 feet and filled with mud. It's weird- for some of us, this earthquake was a minor incovinience, while others have lost everything.

[Oakie]

Funnily enough, if you drive through suburban Chch you can drive for miles and see almost no evidence of the earthquake at all. I've been doing the rounds today inspecting buildings for my clients, and even when you drive through some of the hardest hit suburbs, you would have to know where to go to find the pockets of badly damaged streets and houses.

Exactly my experience. I rode the last 10 km of my morning commute this morning with not a sign of earthquakiness.

[ynot slow]

Be good to see if all the island countries we have contributed funds for give us a few $$$ back.

Was strange on Saturday morning,made a coffee,turned tv on in bedroom to watch,as per ritual on weekend,nothing much at 7 ish,then we had news flash on screen till the "live feed" was available,sort of felt the same feeling when twin towers or tsunami happened,except this was home as it unravelled,well home as my country home.Seems like civil defence worked well,unlike the crap over the floods of 04 in lower Nth Island.

[EJK]

I understand that media isn't cheap (and ofcourse not, free). It will cost. However these guys were illustrating as if the news were doing it to rip people off.

The "Otherside" what I mentioned was the information delivery. Showing the world and national what's happening in the damaged area (constant updates, government's reaction, further information, people's reaction etc...). Also giving credit and recognition to those helped (i.e. Students, army and other nameless volunteers).

If some other businesses are doing to announce them ("advertise"), then so be it. I don't mind.

[Milts]

John Campbell came as a guest to one of the Media Studies lectures at Victoria University.

He says he gets to do something which he considers to be real journalism approximately once a month. All the rest are things which he either considers biased, disproportionate, innaccurate, pandering to the mass audience for ratings or irreleivant.

I guess the other side of that coin is that once a month you get a truely good story which would not be possible were it not for the money and viewers generated by the rest of the storys. Even if you criticise the media for only producing stories for profit, don't forget they're then at worst a reflection of society - they show what they do because that's what's popular. Doesn't mean it's good, accurate, or relevant, but it's what society wants.

[Berries]

Some people are saying that the media (closeup, News, Campbell live) is covering the news to sell information for dollars (i.e. attention for advertisements).

True or False, Discuss.
True. No discussion needed.

[EJK]

True. No discussion needed.

I rest my case.

[Gremlin]

its a business. Businesses market themselves as offering the best product, then deliver to beat the competition, to gain a further edge. This is uh, reasonably common and hardly rocket science.

[Grumph]

The TV media are lapping it up - no question

But the radio has been invaluable - we're well out of town and there's a shitload of damage in our area with no sight or sound of our council so being kpt up to date by radio - principally RadioLive has been the only relevant communication.

[Virago]

I rest my case.

I can't figure out what you're point is. I think your expressing distaste for people being seen to use the disaster for financial gain?

For the media, there's no real direct financial benefit. Earthquake or not, the news would still be broadcast, and the adverts still played. It is no different to the emergency crews that are on site, they are getting paid for it - would you be happier if they weren't?

If you're expecting the entire country to commit financial suicide as a show of "support" for the people of Canterbury, then you're being a little naive. At least $2 billion is going to be plucked from the government's reserves and poured into the Canterbury economy - it ain't no bad thing...

In the meantime the media are just doing their job as always (for better or worse...)

[MisterD]

Some insight (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/earthquakes/news/article.cfm?c_id=184&objectid=10671618) for you...good old Twatter.

[Murray]

Was strange on Saturday morning,made a coffee,turned tv on in bedroom to watch,as per ritual on weekend,nothing much at 7 ish,then we had news flash on screen till the "live feed" was available

Strange thing was that I was up at 6.00am and it was on Sky News which is Australian based. They had people in the area with mobile phones and were talking to them and downloading pictures which were being shown on an Australian based news programme.

NZ news was about an hour and 1/2 later. hate it when the Aussies beat us!!

[ellipsis]

....my bro called from the US less than half an hour after it happened...got a tsunami warning....didnt even know fuck all about what was happening ourselves....the media is just that...they are big business...

[neels]

It's fair to say that the media are showing the more sensational bits, rather than balanced coverage of the whole situation

We've had calls from people that have seen the news to check if we're ok, when you tell them that theres a bit of a mess and the house is a bit wonky but still standing, they have been quite surprised as the impression the media have given is that most of christchurch has collapsed in a heap.

So yeah, I think they're guilty of only showing the bits with shock value to generate interest, rather than providing an informative public service.

[MisterD]

NZ news was about an hour and 1/2 later. hate it when the Aussies beat us!!

I picked it up off my RSS blog feeds first, then turned on Sky. They had the time and magnitude of the earthquake wrong, half an hour after the magnitude had been upped from 7.2 to 7.4.

Old fashioned media is crap for breaking news...

[Bald Eagle]

All the medias graphic artists must be off fixing their houses, nowhere have I seen a decent graphic map with the affected area displayed. Would have thought with google maps it should have been easy for them by now.

[Winston001]

You could also agrue that they are preforming a service. We all want to see what's happened- by showing extensive coverage they are cutting down on the number of 'rubber neckers'.

Funnily enough, if you drive through suburban Chch you can drive for miles and see almost no evidence of the earthquake at all. I've been doing the rounds today inspecting buildings for my clients, and even when you drive through some of the hardest hit suburbs, you would have to know where to go to find the pockets of badly damaged streets and houses.

When we had no power and were forced to listen to reports on talkback radio, I nearly rang them and accused them of over sensationalising the whole thing- the damage in my area was so minor. Then I started hearing from freinds- one who's hose had broken in half, another who's almost new house had sunk about 2 feet and filled with mud. It's weird- for some of us, this earthquake was a minor incovinience, while others have lost everything.

Well put.

Disasters seldom wipe out entire communities although the residents of Pompeii might disagree. And as a poster above said, reporters standing in tidy streets saying "Nothing to see here folks..." aren't going to be winning any awards.

So naturally journalists show us the real damage and focus on the human impact. Personally I'd like to see a better balance, showing that much of Christchurch is unaffected, but it just doesn't happen that way. Probably a fair part of Haitii was fine too but we never saw that.

TV coverage is sensationalist and pretty shallow. By contrast there is excellent coverage in our newspapers and on National Radio.

[EJK]

I can't figure out what you're point is. I think your expressing distaste for people being seen to use the disaster for financial gain?

For the media, there's no real direct financial benefit. Earthquake or not, the news would still be broadcast, and the adverts still played. It is no different to the emergency crews that are on site, they are getting paid for it - would you be happier if they weren't?

If you're expecting the entire country to commit financial suicide as a show of "support" for the people of Canterbury, then you're being a little naive. At least $2 billion is going to be plucked from the government's reserves and poured into the Canterbury economy - it ain't no bad thing...

In the meantime the media are just doing their job as always (for better or worse...)

What you said is what I meant. My distaste is the guys I know's judgement. Not the media itself. I have no distaste for medias financial gain. I mean come on, whos gonna pay for all the service, constant updates, IT support, staffs, maintenance etc... (I can go on)? We don't pay $0.20 everytime we click a headline. I understand the business purpose.

[Virago]

Some insight (http://www.nzherald.co.nz/earthquakes/news/article.cfm?c_id=184&objectid=10671618) for you...good old Twatter.

Interesting that they're getting all bitter and twisted about their "ratings" for a natural distaster - it certainly gives weight to EJK's distaste.

Having had the TV One coverage running most of the day, I thought the live coverage had run its course by around 1pm - all they could do was recycle the same worn-out footage every 5 minutes.