"Coming to you live from the state capital, I'm Joe Fubar." That's what they told me last night as I was watching the eleven o'clock news. Some poor schmuck was standing outside in freezing weather on the steps of the state capital to bring me a live report on something that had happened six hour earlier. There was no one there for him to interview. They'd all gone home hours ago. There was no actual change in the status of the story since it had been reported on the six o'clock news. What could possibly be the journalistic value of presenting a live report from outside of a darkened building? They do this sort of thing all the time, and it really burns my butt.If something is actually happening, I can see some marginal value in having the reporter on the scene. After all, immediacy of information is important when reporting the news, especially since news gets old so fast. I can understand that there is cache to being the first news team to break the story. I can't for the life of me figure out what these guys expect to break, however, by camping outside darkened buildings. Are they trying to fool me into thinking that somehow their report is better, more pertinent, more accurate? Just because it's "live?" Do they think I'm just too dumb to notice that the people on whom they're reporting have not only gone home, but have probably gone to bed? What makes this kind of report any more "live" than saying the same thing from inside the studio? Anyone? If you can make sense of it, please let me know.
