Two days ago, I was glad to see all the news coverage. After an unGodly amount of non-stop, all-angles, catchphrase-laced newscasting chock full of pure SHIT about the World Trade Center, I've decided the only thing that can destroy the world's sudden feelings of being on the same side is the way the news is going about the coverage.

Every 2.1 seconds they show the same clip of tower 2 getting hit then crumbling, then they interview a survivor, then they talk about Osama and the newscaster sheds a tear. Lather, rinse, repeat. Then they ask a "terrorism expert" (read: college student who read a story about a bomb once) from Nebraska the most insane hypotheticals about could-Osama-have-trained-mules-with-bombs, followed by another shot of tower 2 dropping, filmed by the guy who was standing directly next to the guy who filmed the first angle shown. It is being force fed to us all, and it really needs to stop.

Hence the RNN, the only news network that only runs the news when they have NEW information, not the same ridiculous rumors about deadly pencils or completely ludicrous speculations. The news anchors also don't cry. They report the news. They also only interview people who are important to the story rather than the first local yokel (wow!) who drunkenly wanders in front of the camera.

Sorry about the amount of rant in this, but this really is an attempt at an idea, a news station that reports the NEWS and follows these rules:
- No crying from the anchor man/woman
-Interviews can only be conducted with people with the authority to make statements that are correct, not rumors
-Anchor man/woman will NOT make speculations as to who may have done what
-Information may only be repeated when new additions to the information are obtained, or within a 4 hour period (when the news is huge and still pretty new it can be repeated every hour or so)

I'm sure there's more, but I can't really think right now. Maybe instead of an RNN we should just have strict news guidelines?
-- AfroAssault, Sep 14 2001

Naked News http://www.nakednews.com/
If nothing else, at least this place makes it interesting. [AfroAssault, Sep 14 2001, last modified Oct 04 2004]

welcome to america. learn how to use your remote to more effectiveness, and shut off the news when it gets to be too much. check in once or twice a day to see if anything has changed.
-- mihali, Sep 14 2001


//The news anchors also don't cry.//

They're trained NOT to cry so it's actually rare that you'll see them do it. I, however, like to see humanity creep into the anchor during disasters and don't mind when they do show emotion. It reminds me that they're human and that tragedies affect us all...even those who are supposed to be removed and "objective."
-- iuvare, Sep 14 2001


[admin: fixed spelling of idea title. "relevent" -> "relevant"]

I was thinking about something like this, too. It wouldn't feel like television; it would be more like USENET, but with Multimedia. News reports would be "pushed" out, once, when they happen. News reports would be grouped into trees according to subject; you'd have first the main news about an event happening, then refinements that show different angles. (Other properties of these nodes: Who authored the report? Is it opinion or a direct view of an event? Is it response to something else? ...)

The digital viewing device stores all this and then displays you things from the subtrees you're interested in, interrupted by advertising nodes on that subtree. Your remote has buttons like "Yawn" (don't show me anything more from this subtree ever again), "!" (show me anything in this subtree as soon as it happens), etc.

(Problems: Information doesn't group itself easily into trees; things have little cross-connections.)

I don't have a problem with rumors getting reported, as long as their sources are clear. Absolute truth is rare to come by; it's much better to allow people to be wrong, but make clear where information is coming from, and how substantiated it is.

Similarly, I would like news to be presented by someone who is very well informed, calls bullshit when he or she sees it, and shares at least some of my political leanings, whatever they are. Given that, I don't mind it if that person cries when something bad happens; I may be crying, too.
-- jutta, Sep 14 2001, last modified Sep 15 2001


jutta, I've had very similar thoughts about news (though I was trying to think of a way to make newspapers more relevant), including the usenet idea. An idea whose time has come.
-- wiml, Sep 15 2001


PBS has always done an exemplary job of presenting news in a knowledgable and indepth fashion. Foreign correspondents present actual information and it is not glossed over.
-- thumbwax, Sep 15 2001


whoa, I misspelled relevant? How did I have it spelled on the title? (must not have noticed, I am tha mastur uv speleng)

Anyways, [mihali]-- I rarely watch TV except to watch Cops or the Simpsons, and occasionally Conan O'Brien, but during the few times I actually fired up the ol' Idiot Box for some neuron stimulating excitement, I felt as though I was watching a movie for the umpteenth time in a row. The anchors weren't actually crying, but they were getting sappy and trying to bring a tear out of the viewers eye. Of course, I got all choked up and teary eyed when I first saw the news, but what I was witnessing was a complete mockery of what news is supposed to be. First of all, what they were reporting wasn't new. Second, it wasn't unbiased (though I don't expect it to be, they immediately began the Barbara Walters tear-inducing style). Finally, they seemed to be making stuff up Dewey-Defeats-Truman style. Of course, the different stations are trying to one-up each other which is the whole point, but gibberizing (hey, I just made up a word! It means: fabricating) is just not the way to go.

I think there was more I had to say, but my laundry's done so I have to go. That edit button's getting some tonight, baby....
-- AfroAssault, Sep 15 2001



random, halfbakery