Back in February, I wrote about our (read: the general public's) seeming obsession with leaving comments on online news stories, as if our opinions were as, if not more, important than the stories themselves. I wondered why this was, and, frankly, what the point of allowing such activity brought to the legitimate act of news distribution. Well, thanks to the good folks at NBC 30, there is now a new level of public involvement in what used to be a purely objective way to relate important information.
You see, over at nbcconnecticut.com (the online outlet of channel 30), you can now rate the news stories.
I wish I was kidding.
Here's an example. A young person recently drowned in the Housatonic River. Quite a sad story. One, you would think, the average reader would see and say something like, "How horrible." You would think said reader would then refrain from clicking the small box to the right of said article, the box that says "I am: ." You'd think a tragedy would invoke a certain sense of respect.
Of course, you'd be wrong.
Here are the "ratings" for the article:
The website does not list the total number of votes, but the fact that anyone bothered to think that their emotional input was necessary after reading of a young person's death makes you stop to wonder, no? (I'm curious if the "laughing" and "bored" votes were nothing more than children deciding to be ironic.)
Honestly, what is the point of this? Are we so pathetically attention-starved that we need to be involved in everything we touch? Is that the reason for such inventions?
And what about the long-term effect of such immediate interaction? How could this affect what we consider "news?" If NBC 30's audience decides that politics or world news is boring, will the station decide to make such information obsolete? Will the news become nothing more than fluff a la E! News or Entertainment Tonight? Will celebrity birthdays overtake a recap of the stock market? Are Lolcats going to suddenly show up?
Sure, this may be taking things to an extreme, but one has to assume that these small changes will somehow play into future models of news.
Our world is constantly evolving. How do I feel about it? Sometimes I'm "thrilled," but things like this just make me "sad." Feel free to click on the sidebar to tell me your opinion. Wait, I don't have such technology.
Posts
2 comments:
Just voted on an "article". It was kinda fun. I can see people getting addicted to it, actively looking to express or experience different emotions on a variety of articles in a single sitting. Hate to say it, but this is a fantastic ploy to generate multiple hits and sell advertising. Let's face it, selling advertising is the real purpose of most news journals.
I know you're saying these things with you tongue firmly planted in cheek, but you're right about the lure. The more clicks, the more advertising dollars. I suppose channel 30 has to pay for their new HD cameras somehow.
Post a Comment