Re: WHY Aruba is bad journalism
> I must agree that the Aruba thing has LONG outlived it's
> newsworthiness. But, aren't there many other things going
> on in the world to report on? Here are a few ideas:
>
> - The "hostage taker" radical who is the new president of
> Iran. Here's a country on the threshold of having nukes,
> one that's a documented hiding place for terrorists. And,
> it has a new (and even more extreme) president. Yes, its
> been in the news a bit - but apparently is less than 1/20th
> as important as a blonde from Alabama.
>
> - The G8 summit. Again, its in the news - but is seemingly
> not deserving of the insight that the Aruba case gets.
>
> - The continuing concerns about oil suppiles and prices.
> That seems important, though apparently it is only a side
> story.
>
> - The scorched earth policies of the president of Zimbabwe
> and the people who have been killed/displaced by them. Too
> bad they're not from an affluent suburb of Birmingham.
>
> and, within 20 miles of Greta's seaside hotel suite in
> Aruba...
>
> - The wild eyed president of Venezuela (Hugo Chavez) who is
> using all of that oil money to subsidize the nuke programs
> in places like North Korea and Iran. Who is forging new
> alliances among "rogue" states and is now almost
> single-handedly propping up Cuba. At the moment, he has
> latched on to the issue of a terrorist (who allegedly blew
> up a Cubana airliner during the 80's) who is here in the US
> (Texas, I believe). They claim we're harboring a terrorist,
> and they may even be right. The issue is being used by
> Chavez and Castro to make the US government look bad - and
> its working. A big story in Latin America, but not
> important here, I guess. Had a wealthy blonde american high
> schooler been on the jetliner, perhaps we'd pay attention.
>
> By the way, we hear NOTHING about Chavez - who is quite
> dangerous. Trust me, I travel there now and then. This
> government has oil money (ours - they actually OWN Citgo)
> and is buying lots of Chinese and Russian arms with it.
> And, he's in our own backyard.
>
> IF you can watch BBC News, you get to see coverage (albeit
> left leaning) about these stories. CNN International also
> hits on these issues. But, Fox, MSNBC, CNN, etc. are all
> fiddling while Rome burns. The "big 3" are no better in
> their respective coverage of the nightly news. Reminds me
> of news coverage on September 9, 2001.
>
> THAT'S why Aruba is bad journalism. We deserve better!
>
Yes, we certainly do. But the other news topics you list require some inquiry and honest reporting. Why expend that kind of effort when the Greta and Geraldo show can originate from Aruba for little more cost than satellite time for the feed to news central back in the states?
That's the direction the so-called news channels take now and will do so even more in the future. Isuues and possible threats (or actual threats) to world security don't matter--too costly to cover, not enough flash and trash value to suit an uninterested audience that wants its prurient interests stirred by a missing teen ager (granted, a tragedy but until something of news value occurs, enough already). Can't run the risk of alienating sponsors by covering a story of substance for fear the audience will associate "dull coverage" with "dull sponsors." Were I an industrial or business owner, don't think I'd want my company's name associated with the rubbish that's coming out of Aruba in the name of news. It's better suited to the air headed coverage afforded all the other lacking stories covered by the tabloid TV programs and those of that ilk.
What you say is on target. We deserve better, but it's not likely we'll get it with the ambulance chasing likes of Fox and MSNBC controlling the news agenda out of locations such as Aruba. For my part, I'm ready to take the 24 hour "news" (using the term loosely) operations off my remote--this whole thing has just become too ridiculous and too much.
