Does that help to explain the severity of the event?
Or, is this grandstanding, hoping that something unusual will occur, thus making for dramatic television?
Do we need to see these reporters in the field during such dangerous conditions?
Would you want to be that reporter?
2 comments:
Although some people believe it is not necessary for a reporter to stand outside in the middle of a hurricane or other harsh conditions I believe it can definitely enhance the news story. The reporter is giving the public the opportunity to take in the story on a more intimate level. For most people hearing about a horrible news event doesn't impact the audience's emotions as much as seeing the actual event take place.
For me when a reporter stands in the mist of a hurricane and reports the news to the public that reporter is not only reading off facts he or she is showing them. Which in return makes the story credible because the public is now an eye witnesses.
I think that using a reporter as an indicator of how severe the storm is and its affect on the population is a good strategy to bring attention to the public of the storm's severity. The reporter is taking part in the tole that these storms take on the people inhabiting its impact, instead of just being a bystander reporting on it. To me, it is a little bit theatrical, but I think that the motive behind throwing a reporter into harsh conditions is honest in its presentation. Relating to the newsworthiness element of conflict/controversy/disaster, viewers are definitely more captivated by the image of a reporter giving information to the program while almost falling over in the winds than they would by a meteorologist giving factual details of the storm in a newsroom. In this case, this tactic is partially for appearances and gaining viewership.
Post a Comment