It's that time again--time for media critics and the media alike to start yelling over what they deem "excessive" cable news coverage of stories like the JonBenet murder case. (Speaking of coverage, John Gibson had a guest with an interesting take on the analysis of John Mark Karr's handwriting.) But I'd like to submit a different point of view: that the overwhelming coverage of this case and others like it (Laci Peterson, Natalee Holloway) is representative of a viewer-propelled democracy, not a cable-news dictatorship of a few news execs. Cable news is, at its populist heart, a reflection of what human nature is interested in, and not what elitist critics think viewers should be interested in. It's why cable news is here to stay, and why network news is changed forever. This story I read about in July really crystallized my thinking on this: a report on the round-the-clock television coverage of the rescue of a little boy in India who had fallen down a well. Said the BBC:
The rescue operation gripped the nation's media.
Some TV channels have pulled their schedules to devote live coverage to it.
The coverage showed the boy looking around timidly, munching on the chocolate and drinking milk from a can.
Thousands of people have been sending messages to TV stations, wishing luck to the rescuers.
"Ever since I saw him on your channel yesterday, I have been crying. I can't think of anything else. He is a brave child, I would not have survived if I was in his place," a caller to Zee News, Shashi Jain, said.
So let the media decry American cable news' so-called penchant for "tabloid sensationalism." Because the truth is that anywhere--any country--that the generally good and kind human heart beats, there will be "sensational" coverage of tragedy (and, in the case of the little boy in India, miracles.) All it means is that we're sad when the news is sad, outraged when the news is outrageous...in short, it just means that we're human, and thank goodness for that.
