KILLER WAVE??

Kirk Gillock

Kirk Gillock

Rebel with a cause
(Edit) Just needed to vent. It's been a long day and the first thing I saw, when I turned on the TV, was that obnoxious Fox News KILLER WAVE graphic. Obviously it hit a nerve.

Go back to what you were doing. There's nothing to see here.
 
Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

It is very typical FOX news, CRAPPY, CRASS presentation.

If it bothers you, don't watch.
 
Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

FWIW... I, too, have worked at a news station and, unlike your experience, found the reporters to be very human and display genuine concern for people in their stories. Never, did I see anyone high-five or otherwise celebrate a tragic event.

Furthermore, I can't see why you're so disgusted with the term "Killer Wave" to describe a tsunami.

Also, I highly doubt that graphic was the result of any "brainstorm meeting". More likely one person came up with it and ran with it.

How is this different from the way any major news station approaches titling other tragic events?

If they don't mention it, will it go away?
 
Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

Unless the graphic included people pointing and laughing (or the word "dude"), I really can't see the offense here.
 
Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

Pooh - I agree. But turning your head won't get things changed. I have written an e-mail. Oh yes, nothing demands change like an angry e-mail.  ;)

Terry - I agree. Not all reporters are like that.

"Killer Wave" is a marketing and promotional title. Tragedy should not be promoted or marketed. They might as well have little animated people running from the graphic. Just make a graphic that says "Tsunami!"  Hey, THAT gets my attention.

And it's not any different from how other news stations cover tragic events. It's just the only station I get.  ;)
 
Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

Re: FOX NEWS - KILLER WAVE??

I'm thinking most Americans (until very recently) weren't familiar with the word 'tsunami'. At least, most folks here in Okie-la-homa still find it hard to wrap their mouth around the word.

I understand that you are much closer to the devestation and the survivors than I, and you're more likely to have your sensitivity to semantics in tune.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

I think PK is onto something here - a real issue for me since the sensationalization of news began in the mid-80s. Around the time CNN came to the fore, we started developing 3d intros for wars and disasters.

I think the whole thing reaks of market-driven promotional insensitivity. I've got myriad issues with FOX "News" but wouldn't say that they have a corner on the market for tasteless promotion and branding of a news story.

It wasn't long (hours) after the WTC towers fell that there were catchy graphics tumbling in virtual space over footage of planes impacting the buildings. Building viewership in the competitive news market has little to do with compassion - it's all about branding and capturing eyes.

In the news director's mind, the tsunami (a word any half-wit American kid over the age of five knows - like killer bees) is an event to be capitalized on - not a tragedy.

Believe me, they were pleased as punch when they found out that the first competitor media outlet posted images of corpses with their arms reaching - rigormortised - skyward, because it meant they could do it too. Sensational images get ratings. Look at the footage that made the news when the first Blackwater contractors were killed in Iraq. That is a prime example of a news ratings wet dream.

Embedded reporters and anchors might well have some emotion tied to any given story or the subject therein, but I wouldn't give the programming decision makers who have to answer to AC Nielsen too much credit. News is supposed to be a public service provided by the networks - not inherently commercial, but in today's world of 200 channels they'll do anything they have to to enhance their programs and capture "eyes".

I guess that is all I have to say about branding and packaging tragedy by the media.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Hi there!

I must say, the first time I heard of the tragedy was from my niece two days after it happened. I didn't watch any TV since about beginning of December, and I don't seem to miss much.

Then I got the Saturday papers (Jan 1st), and it finally hit home. I don't mean to diminish the impact of an audiovisual medium (hey, I am a wannabe fillmmaker!), but I think I comprehend the disaster described in a newspaper on a more human level than I would if I got it from TV. Maybe it's because it gives more room to imagination, but probably more so because it allows me to stop in mid-sentence to re-read the unbelievable and unfathomable.

I guess it's a little harder to switch a paper than a TV channel. That's why papers generally feel more connected to the news they cover - at least to me. It may also have something to do with demographics - people who read papers are generally inclined to analyze things on a deeper level than casual TV watchers, so papers tend to be a little more respectful of their audience.

Which is to say - I agree that TV sensationalizes the news, however tragic, to get their ratings. It also builds up our tolerance level to feel and understand other people's tragedies. There was an excellent column by Rex Murphy in The Globe And Mail this Saturday, about how shows like Survivor trivialize Western understanding of natural disaster, making it entertainment. When the real disaster strikes, we are so conditioned by TV that we fail to comprehend what's really happened.

I may be just ranting, as usual... but this disaster is really terrible, truly the worst natural disaster on record, and anyone (or anything) that capitalizes on its magnitude should be put to shame.

J.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Did someone delete my post in which I said that I thought sensationalistic news started around the time of Apollo 13?

If so, please PM me as to WHY.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

[quote author=John Hudson link=board=Offtopic;num=1104854189;start=0#9 date=01/04/05 at 11:43:48]Was not I, said the fly.   ???[/quote]

You are the fly? Wow! Ya know you are kind of lame as far as super heroes go. :-/

flycov8lg.gif
 
Re: KILLER WAVE??

Thanks overlandfilms and well said Jerry.

The handling of 9/11 was an eye opener for me and then the Iraq war was the clincher.  All I saw was "which station can out do the next". A competition for who can have the exclusive video of the planes or of the bomb. When news becomes a product that requires packaging and marketing then we've lost touch with what is most important, ...reporting the NEWS and facts. Just tell us what we need to know and we'll watch.

How about the 3 Ring Circus for The Peterson Murder. How many felt like the victims were forgotten and $$$ was remembered? KILLER WAVE!!! KILLER HUSBAND!!! KILLER RATINGS!!!

The news is suppose to be a public service, not entertainment (that's what sitcoms and CSI are for). Maybe that's part of the problem, we're getting our news from the same box we get our entertainment from.  It all just blends together as one big drama or soap opera.  Ratings, advertising, $$$. (I'm a former ad exec) It's made everything dirty. I'm not sure but I think even trusty ole Weather Channel and CSPAN are getting in on the fun. If not, it's only a matter of time before the Nielsons come knocking on their door.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

[quote author=P.K. Gillock link=board=Offtopic;num=1104854189;start=0#11 date=01/04/05 at 11:50:35]I'm not sure but I think even trusty ole Weather Channel and CSPAN are getting in on the fun. If not, it's only a matter of time before the Nielsons come knocking on their door.[/quote] :'(
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

[quote author=overlandfilms link=board=Offtopic;num=1104854189;start=0#6 date=01/04/05 at 10:59:52]I think PK is onto something here - a real issue for me since the sensationalization of news began in the mid-80s.  Around the time CNN came to the fore, we started developing 3d intros for wars and disasters. [/quote]

Sensationalism was around way before the 1980's.

... tsunami (a word any half-wit American kid over the age of five knows - like killer bees)  
Click to expand...

Your idea of a slam? :P I disagree with your assumption. Oh sure... they know *now*.

Believe me, they were pleased as punch when they found out that the first competitor media outlet posted images of corpses with their arms reaching - rigormortised - skyward, because it meant they could do it too.  Sensational images get ratings.  Look at the footage that made the news when the first Blackwater contractors were killed in Iraq.  That is a prime example of a news ratings wet dream.
Click to expand...

That's your opinion... and, perhaps, we should allow someone with your intellect and opinions to control how the media portrays news events.

Embedded reporters and anchors might well have some emotion tied to any given story or the subject therein, but I wouldn't give the programming decision makers who have to answer to AC Nielsen too much credit.  News is supposed to be a public service provided by the networks - not inherently commercial, but in today's world of 200 channels they'll do anything they have to to enhance their programs and capture "eyes".

I guess that is all I have to say about branding and packaging tragedy by the media.  
Click to expand...

Yeah, come to think of it, I blame the media for all the world's woes.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

[quote author=Terry_Lasater link=board=Offtopic;num=1104854189;start=0#13 date=01/04/05 at 12:50:07]Yeah, come to think of it, I blame the media for all the world's woes.[/quote]If there were not haburger eaters, there wouldn't be McDonald's. Blame it on ourselves, is what I usually say. I think you were sarcastic, so we are probably in agreement. ;)
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

[quote author=Terry_Lasater link=board=Offtopic;num=1104854189;start=0#13 date=01/04/05 at 12:50:07]
Yeah, come to think of it, I blame the media for all the world's woes.[/quote]
Terry, I sense sarcasm, but I don't know where it's coming from. What made you say that? What part of his comment made you think, in any capacity, that he or any of us were "blaming" the media for the worlds woes? We're not saying the media causes war, tsunami's, or any of the things it reports. Terrbile things happen, but there's nothing wrong with asking for responsible reporting.

You're right, sensationalism has been around a long, long time. But when do we say enough is enough? Where do we draw the line?  I hope there is a line!  I think if something tragic happened in your life and you saw the way the media packaged your pain, sensationalized it, and profited from it, you wouldn't feel this way.

It's 4am here, time to hit the sheets! NOw let's put this baby to bed. I apologize, I just wanted to vent. I didn't intend for it to go this far. I'm drawing the line. :)

Good night.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE??

I'm watching this thread closely. :)

Remember, we can discuss matters of opinions respectfully and in an adult manner without 'chastising or sarcasm' please.

I think P.K. is on to something; hence COURT T.V. ? The media is sensational and as of late too quick to draw (misreportings by CBS, NY.Times, etc).

I always say "No news is good news..." Well, I didn't say it, but I subscribe to it.

I think if something tragic happened in your life and you saw the way the media packaged your pain, sensationalized it, and profited from it, you wouldn't feel this way.
Click to expand...

Well put P.K.
 
Re: KILLER WAVE??

Terry,

Don't get me wrong on the Killer Bees / tsunami quote - my point is that "KILLER WAVES" is not a scientific interpretation but fantastic, hyped graphic that sensationalizes the tragic events being reported.

Now, I certainly was stretching a bit on the 5 year old comment generalization - my own 6-year old didn't know the word until this week and she's no dummy. ;)

Still, a 2" graphic KILLER WAVES made up of frame-grabbed flood footage on my 27" monitor proclaiming disaster certainly crosses some fact reporting ethical boundaries. The media is not always responsible for what happens in the world, and I certainly don't blame the media for a tsunami.

Now, I'm rarely in a position to dictate what anyone watches, but I do have the right as a US citizen to call foul when something crosses the line. I happen to think that television news reporting has eroded (in my lifetime) from feature story quality subject study into sensational propaganda and agenda pushing. We are quickly fed information through soundbites and music video length edits - and are expected or expect to be able to - form views and opinions based on this limited and strictly formatted material.

I do indeed think there is a problem and we can do better. This is why I take the time to read the NY Times; Washington Post; SF Gate and Christian Science Monitor throughout the week and have NPR or BBC WorldService droning on behind me as I work.

I don't proclaim to know anything about anything, but I do wish to be informed in a responsible way befitting someone who invests their time to be so.

What do you think?
 
Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

Re: KILLER WAVE?? (nevermind)

[quote author=P.K. Gillock link=board=Offtopic;num=1104854189;start=15#15 date=01/04/05 at 13:13:17]
Terry, I sense sarcasm, but I don't know where it's coming from. What made you say that? What part of his comment made you think, in any capacity, that he or any of us were "blaming" the media for the worlds woes? We're not saying the media causes war, tsunami's, or any of the things it reports. Terrbile things happen, but there's nothing wrong with asking for responsible reporting.

You're right, sensationalism has been around a long, long time. But when do we say enough is enough? Where do we draw the line?  I hope there is a line!  I think if something tragic happened in your life and you saw the way the media packaged your pain, sensationalized it, and profited from it, you wouldn't feel this way.

It's 4am here, time to hit the sheets! NOw let's put this baby to bed. I apologize, I just wanted to vent. I didn't intend for it to go this far. I'm drawing the line. :)

Good night.[/quote]

Hey, P.K. - No need to apologize. We are all expressing opinions here and are entitled to do so (as long as we play by the rules). ;)

Yes, that was sarcasm I was using in my last statement. I didn't realize the use of sarcasm was illegal here... (that was sarcasm). It's not so much that I feel people are *blaming* the media so much as they are *focusing* on the media.

There are definitely pros and cons concerning the way "the media" covers news events. Technology has advanced beyond our ability to understand it's impact.

I think if something tragic happened in your life and you saw the way the media packaged your pain, sensationalized it, and profited from it, you wouldn't feel this way.
Click to expand...

It's easy to make someone appear cold and heartless to other readers when making that statement. But, you also risk placing yourself on some moral high-ground. Pointing out what irks you is one thing, offering a viable solution is another.

I guess my question to you is: How should the media report tragic events? What are the guidelines and where are the rules of ethics and conduct that would govern all?

btw, I enjoy reading your posts, P.K.
 
You must log in or register to reply here.
Back
Top