dssadsda
...ned” and that they’ll stay through the commercials . To do so, they resort to other stratagems, the most commonly used being to promise the viewers sensational news after the break. Another important thing is that the pace of the news program has to be fast to attract younger audiences which prevent from any in-depth coverage of any subject. By analyzing how TV broadcasters get you to watch ,the authors support their idea that TV news has more to do with show business than with good journalism since the content is less important than the form. In this chapter the authors say that “when the anchor is [...] a journalist, the story is likely to be given additional dimensions...” and I tend to agree with them about this. I think that a journalist anchor is more capable of rightly transmitting the information than an actor anchor since he knows his subject whereas an actor anchor is only acting as if he knew what he’s talking about. To me what thoughts are behind the words are as important as what the words actually are. Is information the actual words said by the anchor? It’s part of it but body language, nonverbal cues, speech inflections also play a part in conveying the opinions and beliefs of the anchor that a viewer, whether consciously, or subconsciously, may pick up on. I think that they point out an interesting idea by saying that there is a difference between knowledge and the appearance of knowledge but they don’t support this idea. They don’t give any examples of news coverage by actor versus journalist, so I tried to find concrete examples of journalist/anchors providing the viewers with more relevant information than actors. I wasn’t able to find any. Why is that? It may be because, as the authors say, it’s almost impossible to tell the difference between journalists and actors. But then, why is it almost impossible? According to the authors it is because “anchors are good actors...[who] can convince you that you are seeing the real thing, that is, a concerned, solid journalist”. In my opinion this is not the main reason. I’d rather say that within the current TV news structure, the anchor knowing his stuff or not doesn’t make any difference. As the authors point out, the fast pace doesn’t allow any in-depth subject coverage and to be able to give “additional dimensions” a journalist would need more than the few minutes he has to fill in between commercial breaks. Whatever channel you get your news from, you never get much more than what is already in the headlines because there is no time to tell more. What I find noticeable in the way news is presented on American TV is that most of the time the anchor's comments are made while images are being aired. The comments have to match with the images broadcasters have of a specific event which means that even though there may be interesting subjects to tackle, if there are no images of it you won’t even hear about it. There is no ...