Good TV guy…
This is no surprise to regular readers of Rhetoric: I have a low regard for TV news because of the kind of medium that TV is not because of the journalists who try to make the medium work as a disseminator of journalism. One of those people who try very hard to make it work: Aaron Brown if CNN.








Are there not “channels” for good, reasonably in-depth, policy information?
Couldn’t Brown briefly discuss a great Frontline feature that was relevant to a debate topic? Something on Discovery Channel or History Channel? Something available on the web or at the library to get more information than his time constrained and commercial format allows?
Why not act as a portal rather than infotainer? How do you “link” in a TV format? Does the structural or infrastructural bias of the TV medium prevent or preclude a link-like feature? Could a TiVo/WebTV have a link overlay allowing you “click through” to related information from other sources? Could “link love” promoting other channels be a revenue replacement for any lost sticking (Nielsen) ratings? Rather than a vote against CNN by switching channels, it becomes a vote for CNN as the referrer?
Tim… I’m going to nickname you “The Questionator”!
Seriously, these are excellent questions. I’m especially interested in the idea of linking in TV. I wonder what will become possible as the TV and the computer become one appliance? If time allows I’ll try to tackle some of these questions in the days ahead.
I appreciate your willingness to share these with me.
Here’s what I found on a quick Google for techno-geek solutions. I still think Brown could be avant-garde in researching and recommending other “primary” sources. I think we’re seeing some of it when an anchor or talking head recommends visiting their website and giving out the URL “for more information”.
Hyperlinked television research at the MIT Media Laboratory
System Manager and Hypertext Control Interface for Interactive Cable Television
“The Questionator” LOL, I like it! I’m just feeding off your ideas and writing.
I saw Jon Stewart for the first time on Charlie Rose today. He (Stewart) suggested the same type of thing where bloggers would be at the service of anchors to fact check every aspect of a newscast. Needless to say, Charlie was skeptical, and so was I. Anyone who has been on a debate team will know that “facts” are subject to interpretation and that you can prove anything with statistics!
This is what the desseminator of journalism had to say about Rathergate in a recent article in the Oregonian: …”cable rode that story forever because they hate Dan, or they think TV is too liberal, or just think all news coverage should be mud wrestling.” Ah, yes, the Vast Right Wing Conspiracy lives! No mention of the violation of journalistic standards (we don’t need no standards!) or the questionable judgment of running a poorly sourced hit piece so close to the election (we gotta help our team win!). Since you say you think Brown works hard as a “disseminator of journalism”, I guess I need your definition of “journalism”.
RH… yes, Aaron Brown isn’t perfect.
I don’t think I said that Brown was subhuman, or suprahuman for that matter, but more interesting to me is why you give Brown a pass when you were so critical of Rather’s journalistic misdeeds. Is this what some call “nuance”?
RH– I’m not making negative evaluations here. I like Brown. I think he’s one of the best TV journalists we have. I wasn’t comparing him to Dan Rather. Nor was I unaware that Brown, or just about anyone else for that matter, comes with baggage.
Did you send me an e-mail concerning quality back-up Philips or Sony Web TV receivers???
thank you