Category Archives: Problem Practices

Communication behavior or analysis that is often counter-productive

CNN’s ‘Tragedy Porn’

Problem Practices, Reviews, , , , , , , , , , ,

Capture Break NewsRarely has a major news organization drifted so far from reporting and toward endless speculation, leaving its in-studio experts adrift in a fog of awkward conjecture.  

No one watching screenwriter Aaron Sorkin’s portrayal of television news in the The Newsroom should assume it’s a documentary.  But after witnessing the last few months of output from CNN, the HBO drama series is more prescient than perhaps they intended. In the first season of the show has management at the fictional Atlantic Cable News (ACN) scrambling to end a ratings slide toward oblivion.  A third of its audience has abandoned it.  After a lot of handwringing abandoning journalistic standards, managers reluctantly decided  to reign in hard-hitting coverage of the most consequential news events of the day, including a potentially catastrophic flirtation by House Republicans to allow the United States government to default on its debt. Instead, the network decided to the match the decision of Nancy Grace at HLN Cable to devote most of its time to reviewing footage of the Casey Anthony trial.  Anthony was charged with murdering her child in 2008.  Grace has made a career by wringing out all the melodrama she can imagine from videos of actual court testimony.

Sorkin titled this episode on the network’s turn toward sensationalism “Tragedy Porn.”  And true to form, for ACN and  a real CNN more recently, the decision was a ratings bonanza.

There are several journalistic variations on the old P.T. Barnum quote about never underestimating what will attract American audiences.  One form is “If it bleeds, it leads.”  Another is that no one should underestimate bottom-feeding journalism as a way to attract viewers.  What we want to know often trumps what we should or need to know.

Our case in point is the March 8 disappearance of the Malaysia Airlines jet after departing from Kuala Lumpur International Airport.  Over seven weeks the network ignored significant and important stories in America and Europe to pile on continuous hours of speculation about where the plane was, and why it disappeared.

To be sure, the disappearance of the plane is and was a significant story.  In our age of transponders and satellites we are simply not prepared to lose commercial aircraft without a trace.  And yet an intense hunt for what most presumed would be a visible debris field somewhere between Malaysia and southern China never appeared.  Even as the days passed, and in the absence of any proof the airliner had been found, the network went forward with its coverage.  For seven weeks hosts asked questions. Experts guessed.  Reporters interviewed each other.  And “B” role footage of distraught families looped almost continuously.  Rarely in recent years has a major news organization drifted so far away from reporting toward endless speculation, leaving its in-studio experts adrift in a thick fog of awkward conjecture.

Other broadcasters initially used as much as one-third of the airtime for the story, according to Andrew Tyndall, who reliably tracks such things.  But no network so clearly succumbed to what media critic Bob Garfield called CNN’s “long slide from hard news to morbid infotainment.” As with its coverage of the trials of O.J. Simpson and Michael Jackson, or its recent fascination with a disabled and sewage-soaked Carnival Cruise liner, the network suddenly seemed incapable of putting together more than one thought at a time. CNN could have justifiably changed its call letters to OCD.

Never mind the Russian invasion of Crimea, the collapse of what had appeared to be promising Mideast talks, or the deadly collapse of a mountain that wiped out a town in Washingon.  Instead, the network instead busied itself with discussions of the Boeing 777 cockpit, or that idea that planes might be sucked into black holes, or idle speculation about what it meant that one of the pilots had a computer flight simulator at home.

The simple answer to CNN’s abandonment of its reputation as a serious international news source is that the story was good for ratings.  This explanation is in line with network chief Jeff Zucker’s stated desire to come up with “a fresh definition of what news is.”  The idea of pushing a story into a bogus imitation of a thriller is hardly novel to Americans. The fun of watching the “Tragedy Porn” episode of The Newsroom is that it gave us a hopeful view that serious journalists would indeed squirm when asked to forsake the meaningful for the lurid.  In the process, as Tyndall noted, “CNN seriously undercut its reputation as the go-to place for major news.”

The Myth of Successful Multitasking

Models, Problem Practices, , , , , ,
Source: Centers for Disease Control
                       Image: Centers for Disease Control

As researcher Clifford Nass famously noted, multitaskers are “suckers for irrelevancy.”  Because “everything distracts them,” their intellectual performance on important tasks deteriorates. 

As more of my students bring laptops and phones to class, their abilities to concentrate and retain even simple instructions delivered face to face seem to be under assault.  In many cases these are traditionally “strong” students: top-ranked in their high school classes, ambitious, and often intent on pursuing advanced degrees in medicine and other fields. Why are so many not retaining important conclusions or pieces of information?

There is no question a laptop is a great note-taking device. Many of us can type faster than we can write.  But one would have to believe in the tooth fairy to accept the premise that computers in the classroom are only used to deal with the material covered on a given day.  The sacred cow of full connectivity on campus makes it a virtual certainty that students may be placing their bodies in the classroom, but taking their minds elsewhere. Multi-tasking is the norm.  One Stanford faculty member notes that his research indicates a full quarter of his students are trying to use four different media at the same time while there are ostensibly focused on writing term papers.  We’ve all read the results of that kind of writing, and it’s usually not pretty.

The fundamental problem is that almost no one is good at multi-tasking.  We are simply not wired to split short-term memory between a variety of stimuli at once.  We may think otherwise. But there’s near unanimity in the literature on comprehension that critical thinking declines when we fragment our attention. To put it simply, multitasking makes us just a little bit stupid. As researcher Clifford Nass famously noted, multitaskers are “suckers for irrelevancy.”  Because “everything distracts them,” their intellectual performance on important tasks deteriorates.  Sometimes the person addicted to a digital stew of stimuli is the last to know that they have become intellectually impaired.  It’s a common mistake to assume that being “busy” means being “fully engaged.”  We perform our busyness as a badge of honor.  But it’s closer to the truth to conclude that the more we construct lives where external stimuli are a constant, the less we are able to get past the self-induced noise that complicates the completion of an important task.

Try a simple experiment.  Try to read your e-mail or a series of text-messages while also listening to someone explain how to get to an address on the other side of town.  No GPSs allowed. An active and full-time listener will probably process the directions correctly, or ask questions until they have the mental map they need.  The split-time listener is more likely to end up lost, often compounding their addiction to distracted multi-tasking by calling from from a moving car to get new directions.

Of course there are many significant exceptions to acknowledge: those from all walks of life who still have the will to track the explication of a complex idea for an extended period; younger readers happily caught in the thrall of a writer or literary genre; newspaper consumers who will follow an investigative story across three pages of a broadsheet; or the curious who are sufficiently engaged to listen to another for a sustained amount of time. But these individuals increasingly seem to be cultural outliers. We now tend to notice a special passion for thirsty listening and reading.  They stand out from the norm.

So the caution stands: the fragmentation of daily life into competing multiple activities undermines competencies we should want to nurture and protect.  The things worth doing in life –if they are truly worthy of our time–are too important to be compromised by incessant (and non-linear) distraction.  My guess is that Franz Joseph Haydn would have never gotten around to writing those fabulous hundred and six symphonies if he owned a smartphone and an e-mail account.  How would he have had the time?