An 8 year old weighing 14 stones risks being taking into care. A 15-year-old boy is shot dead in his home. News items seperated by a few days.
News searches for stories and is not a repository for social welfare news practitioners may argue. Their job to sell stories. But is there another function news has negated, yet could serve a deeper purpose in this century?
The above stories all depend on value and currency to their constitutents. An 8 year old now runs the top of the news agenda, while the aftermath of a 15 year old falls of the radar. One is about the fear and risks, the other is about the fear and risks
Do we care that much? Should we care that much to see news take on a greater social responsibility? The purists will argue emphatically NO.
Over the course of a few days there was much harumping and hand wringing at a nation gripped by guns.
Over the next few days there will be much much harumping and hand wringing at a nation gripped by obesity.
Is there any secondary, evolving purpose for public acess news other than to bring you a slice of the day's: Oh my God!
The trouble with news is that its been designed by default to be transient with no accountability. But if enough people cared about each issue could they not design their own news ie force the agenda and its ranking in a schedule - a data base.
I don't have any solutions other than to observe the futility and absurdity of this thing called News.
After 911, I think it was the NYT who pledged to keep the news on their front page. They needed to keep this in the public domain. Being off the page did not mean the issue had disappeared.
So what is this called news and how might it better serves as a social anayltical tool rather than a screen of ions showing the lastest thing to shock.