Colorado Media Newsroom
April 22nd, 2013, 12:08 PM
From The Denver Post:
http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/files/2013/04/Police-Converge-Mass-495x330.jpg (http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/2013/04/22/news-coverage-of-boston-terror-and-tv-ratings/13751/police-converge-mass-495x330/)AP
Over the weekend, friends debated the value of the wall-to-wall media coverage from Boston last week. One suggested it is unseemly to discuss Nielsen ratings regarding a national tragedy. Another felt the blanket coverage amounted to “porn,” a titillating source of violent imagery intended to excite and agitate.
I cited the mistakes CNN, particularly John King, committed mid-week as an example of speed getting ahead of accuracy. But I defended the media in terms of the restrained, authoritative coverage offered by NBC and MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NPR, as well as newspapers including the Boston Globe. Pete Williams of NBC and Scott Pelley of CBS were notable for their calm, judicious reporting. The local Boston TV stations were admirable for their steady coverage, often with superior video and a commendable lack of speculation. While social media was often far ahead, with confirmation by mainstream media lagging Twitter sometimes by hours, the two platforms played their very different roles well.
In other countries, some said, a tragic bombing event wouldn’t warrant the round-the-clock obsessive media attention devoted to Boston. (Luckily, we are not inured to such violence here.) In other places, some argued, drones do this kind of damage every day. Should we have a different standard when a major U.S. city is paralyzed by violence? Debatable, but the concept of a strong free press is essential, and obsession to the point of voyeurism is what you get as a result on a day like Friday. The beauty of obsessive media coverage is the off switch: watch/listen enough to catch up, then turn it off. Nobody should sit through as many hours of traumatic coverage as I did (an occupational hazard).
Now then, because it’s still a business and because it reflects the country’s significant interest in the unfolding events, the numbers: In the 5 p.m. MDT hour, when the news of imminent capture of the suspect broke, 5.75 million viewers tuned to Fox News Channel. Close behind, and in spite of failing viewers earlier in the week, CNN was watched by 5.19 million in that hour. MSNBC was watched by 1.43 million. CNN noted it was the highest rating for a non-political, ie. not election-related, event in 10 years.
On the broadcast networks, preliminary figures show NBC News the leader with an average 10.7 million viewers for Friday’s primetime special coverage, ahead of ABC’s 7.79 million and CBS’ 6.89 million.
More... (http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/2013/04/22/news-coverage-of-boston-terror-and-tv-ratings/13751/)
http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/files/2013/04/Police-Converge-Mass-495x330.jpg (http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/2013/04/22/news-coverage-of-boston-terror-and-tv-ratings/13751/police-converge-mass-495x330/)AP
Over the weekend, friends debated the value of the wall-to-wall media coverage from Boston last week. One suggested it is unseemly to discuss Nielsen ratings regarding a national tragedy. Another felt the blanket coverage amounted to “porn,” a titillating source of violent imagery intended to excite and agitate.
I cited the mistakes CNN, particularly John King, committed mid-week as an example of speed getting ahead of accuracy. But I defended the media in terms of the restrained, authoritative coverage offered by NBC and MSNBC, ABC, CBS and NPR, as well as newspapers including the Boston Globe. Pete Williams of NBC and Scott Pelley of CBS were notable for their calm, judicious reporting. The local Boston TV stations were admirable for their steady coverage, often with superior video and a commendable lack of speculation. While social media was often far ahead, with confirmation by mainstream media lagging Twitter sometimes by hours, the two platforms played their very different roles well.
In other countries, some said, a tragic bombing event wouldn’t warrant the round-the-clock obsessive media attention devoted to Boston. (Luckily, we are not inured to such violence here.) In other places, some argued, drones do this kind of damage every day. Should we have a different standard when a major U.S. city is paralyzed by violence? Debatable, but the concept of a strong free press is essential, and obsession to the point of voyeurism is what you get as a result on a day like Friday. The beauty of obsessive media coverage is the off switch: watch/listen enough to catch up, then turn it off. Nobody should sit through as many hours of traumatic coverage as I did (an occupational hazard).
Now then, because it’s still a business and because it reflects the country’s significant interest in the unfolding events, the numbers: In the 5 p.m. MDT hour, when the news of imminent capture of the suspect broke, 5.75 million viewers tuned to Fox News Channel. Close behind, and in spite of failing viewers earlier in the week, CNN was watched by 5.19 million in that hour. MSNBC was watched by 1.43 million. CNN noted it was the highest rating for a non-political, ie. not election-related, event in 10 years.
On the broadcast networks, preliminary figures show NBC News the leader with an average 10.7 million viewers for Friday’s primetime special coverage, ahead of ABC’s 7.79 million and CBS’ 6.89 million.
More... (http://blogs.denverpost.com/ostrow/2013/04/22/news-coverage-of-boston-terror-and-tv-ratings/13751/)