The price of news
January 31, 2004
Television news execs were shocked to find out how much it's going to cost them to work the Scott Peterson murder trial in California. According to a story on cnn.com (which I'm sure was in no way CNN's public way of whining about the issue **end sarcasm**) San Mateo County is charging $51,000 for each precious spot next to the courthouse to be used as a backdrop for a talking head... I mean reporter. They are also charging $7,500/month for parking spaces for satellite trucks and $200/month for regular journalist parking spots.
If you've had enough sense to not really care much about this "sensational" story, let me fill you in on all the pertinent details: Peterson is accused of killing his pregnant wife whom he said was missing. Sensational, huh?
Not really.
What makes this story so compelling to the tabloids and most major media outlets? Why were the lives of this pregnant woman and baby more important to tabloid-style news than any other? Because it was a real-life movie of the week complete with beautiful stars. You know this would have been a non-starter if they had 3 teeth between them or were from a trailer park or ghetto.
I cheer the actions of San Mateo County and hope others follow suit, no pun intended. Television media has brought this upon itself with conduct like the OJ trial, JonBenet Ramsay, Michael Jackson, Susan Smith, Baby Jessica... I could go on ad nauseum. If the major news sources insist on infotainment feeding frenzies and sensationalizing stories to generate ratings and profits, then I don't have a problem with all parties getting their fair share. This is especially warranted when municipalities have to spend extra public money to deal with the sudden onslaught of tv armies. If you've never seen a network encampment, it really is impressive to see how many people it takes to man a stationary camera and fluff the ego of an on-air "personality."
There are less expensive alternatives, especially for situations like this with very little going on visually. They could pool video or keep the talking heads... I mean reporters, in the studio. Anybody heard of a green screen? God forbid networks should consider using their affiliates. Maybe this will cause some of the network bean-counters to rethink some coverage policies. Maybe it will cause some news managers to question why bean-counters are making coverage policy in the first place. Riiiiiight.
When you click the link in the e-mail or by using a feedreader, you see nothing. :( Might be time to rethink the old presentation strategy.
I saw some news crews outside the Supreme Court the other day. Total crews that I could count: 6. Total people: 11. Ah bliss.
Posted by: Raena Armitage on January 31, 2004 11:25 PM