Obama- Primetime

For the first time in this election the Internet has really pissed me off. Not because some one posted something I didn't agree with 'cause honestly that happens a lot. They've pissed me off because they've let me down. The news stations are soooo eager to post their opinions of events they slack off at posting the actual events.

It's happened before Wednesday night (the Obama prime time special), I guess it just caught up to me is all. I'd been perturbed with the delay in posting the actual debates, or how frustrating it was to have to link up with a specific type of player in order to view the live footage. Why isn't a universal, MAC and PC player used on ALL networks? I mean Jesus! They're goal as media Meccas is to communicate with as many people as possible and yet here they are choosing their special media reel players, or lesser named ones that we as computer owners then have to download. Anything downloaded takes up memory space. You mean no ones invented a universal player included on all computers or compatible with them all? Seems silly, and really irritating.

That being said, the videos downloaded into YouTube, or even on CNN's video page, are all playable without these downloads. I wish I could define the difference in data file forms, but I can't, so I'll stick to basics. These kind of videos are downloaded material, not live feeds. They have to have taken place first, and then be contributed to online data bases. This is all well and good. Yet why is the posting of the events themselves coming after the posting of commentary on them. Some commentary is written commentary, other is video and yet it is being posted before the replay of the events themselves. This is just wrong. Especially concerning video commentary. If videos of people talking about the event can be downloaded, they why not the footage itself? Eventually the footage is added, inevitably actually, but why the gap, why the overlay? Shouldn't any online media station want to re post the actual event as soon as possible?

I realize that the simple sharing of events is NOT the media's job, or at least it hasn't been. In the past the media's primary purpose was to be the go between, sort of middle man, between news worthy events and the public that might be interested in them. In the past however, the Internet, email, instant messages and live feeds didn't exist. Now they do and yet it seems the media wagons still want to pull all the weight of telling the story. Their priority is not to rerun the events because they're so dead set on commenting on it. In a way I'm sure they feel they've already run the event via live feed so from there they should simple be able to progress. It's a fair assumption. Yet with as much human insight as the media is supposed to have it's hard for me to believe they think all human beings live on the same schedule. Many of us could not watch the live feeds. So why isn't their main priority to then get a video recording of the event up and then plug in their commentary on it? It may sound tedious from a time line perspective, but then remember, once a video is shot it only takes moments to up load. There really is no need for any kind of delay in posting a recording of the actual event. On all major online networks that I checked however, which included CBS, CNN and CPSAN ( not all of which had the live feed of the events) there was at least an hour between the time the event ended and the posting of the video of the event. Yet all of these networks had commentary on the event posted if not during the event, then immediately following it.

Understanding that it is the media's job to both report the facts and comment on them, I feel like it's irresponsible of them to do the later before the former. In lay man's terms, it simply steals the main event's thunder. On a more intellectual level, commentary first, event second, serves to sway the observer toward the view point of the reporter instead of allowing the observer to decide for themselves, or forcing them to do so. Media, especially modern media, has to intentionally require that people are forming there own opinions first. If they don't they're actually setting themselves up for potential "conspiracy theory" disasters. If commentary occurs without prior, or simultaneous exposure of the actual event then well, someone must have been trying to put something over on you. Really what I think that "someone" or technically the reporter was trying to do was what they've always done. They're trying to be the only source, the connecting force between "them" (the event) and "us" (the public), like they've been forever now. But they don't have to be, or more, shouldn't be anymore. They should let us, no WANT us to think for ourselves first, then open up discussion about it and be part of the discussion.

I think Beckett has been influencing me. Modern journalists are like the parents of middle school children. They've got to figure out the practically impossible task of how to let their child try things by themselves, instead of doing everything for them. They've got to except that they no longer HAVE to do everything for them, and that still trying to do everything for them is not only really PISSING their children off, but also not allowing them to grow in a positive and more intellectual direction. If you want a healthy happy child, you've got to know when to let go. Push the birdy out of the nest. And for God sake be happy about it! Okay maybe that last one won't happen, but somethings got to give. Modern media has to allow this difficult transition to occur, for societies own sake! We're actually showing an interest in intellectual growth, through responsibly being a contributing part, actually getting involved, with the world at large. Because it's so easy and accessible now! Let it happen media machine! It's a good thing. But now they have the difficult task, not only of letting their "baby" go, but also finding where they belong. They have to find out how to nurture this advanced kind of child. They're intuitive enough to know that their "baby" still needs to be nurtured, but in a completely different way. The struggle is discovering what that new "way" is.

Good thing I'm here to help out right? By piping up right now and announcing on this internationally available blog, DON'T POST THE COMMENTARY BEFORE THE EVENT!!!!!! You wanna go ahead and post it simultaneously, that's fine. It'll make the transition easier on you I'm sure. But DON'T, just DON'T post comments before you post the event. Let us have that two minutes to decide for ourselves, or at least have the option to strike that "play" button, right next to the article on what you thought about it. What the media can't do is continue to think for us, or feel it has to. That kind of media is long gone. Just guide us toward the information you'd normally receive. Let us watch it, read it, or listen to it and than let us comment on it. This will generate a whole different kind of news, one that people will trust more because they trust themselves, and because it's a whole lot easier to trust a system that trusts you.