Could I have some news with my emotions, please?
S E E D E D C O N T E N T
Walter Cronkite unnerved a nation 56 years ago, by taking off his glasses.
The video has been seen by countless millions over the decades: Cronkite announcing on live television in 1963 the death of President Kennedy. He stops for a moment, removes his glasses, composes himself, and moves on. That gesture rattled Americans because they expected journalists to convey a calm sense of authority, a reassuring stoicism in the face of Cold War stand-offs, civil unrest and even the assassination of a president.
Things have changed. Emotion now blankets the media landscape like an infant’s crib at bedtime. Google “Shepard Smith emotional,” and up come nearly 3 million results, many of them focused on the Fox anchor’s recent visceral response to immigrant suffering. A search of “Rachel Maddow crying” delivers more than 1 million offerings, many for the MSNBC host’s reaction to border detentions and the Mueller report. “Brooke Baldwin tears” uncovers nearly 2 million entries for the CNN reporter’s reaction to a variety of news events.
They are not alone. Contemporary culture trusts feelings over facts, rewards heated emotion — tears or anger — and rejects medium cool. The effect on journalism is unmistakable. And a lot of the blame can be placed on those all-too-common twin devils: television and the internet.
From the earliest days of television, journalists understood the power of an image to overwhelm objectivity. That’s why Cronkite and others worked hard to present the news without emotional cues: no raised eyebrows, head-shaking, or wide-eyed incredulity. They presented the news simply, expecting this would counteract that gut-level response all humans have to striking images.
It didn’t work for long. As television began to overtake newspapers, images trumped words, viewing overpowered reading. In the 1980s TV news actually became profitable, which increased pressure on electronic journalism to highlight emotional images that delivered viewers.
Tags
Who is online
40 visitors
I 'member the Shep thingy over Katrina. I swear he inseminated himself so he could go into labor on National TV !
It didn’t work for long. As MSM began to embrace emotions over facts and started fabricating news out of thin air people started turning them off.
Well when they started targeting the left for a viewing platform Emotions over facts is what they had to become.
Yep, list of CNN lies and fake news....
I love how they infer that internet search results somehow show the number of times any media personality has been emotional. 3 million hits might have been from one five second clip of Shep getting choked up. And they don't just do it once.
And this line was especially hilarious:
What in tarnation is he talking about? I watched Cronkite and he never seemed to be trying to keep his incredulity in check, not any of his facial expressions. He worked in a time long before botox. Only today can you get a media pundit, often some dolled up female who Roger Ailes or Rupert Murdoch hand picked, relay news about children being kept in cages without any change from their plastic botoxed expressions.
Really?
It doesn't take a rocket scientist to figure out that Rachel madcow hasn't had 1 million episodes, Christ that would be the longest running show evah.
Most people know what internet hits infer.