Judy Woodruff and the importance of the News Environment

[Armstead]

This may seem trivial, but it got me thinking about how the on-air "environment" alters our perception of the content and the people who present thge news and interviews. Judy Woodruff seems like a striking example of that.

Obviously the content is the most important aspect of news, and there is plenty to complain about on that level. However, even in the shallow environment of commercial cable and broadcast news, whatever content there is seems to be undercut by the intrusion of show biz.

Judy Woodruff used to drive me crazy on CNN. Her ticks and mannerisms were distracting and insipid. Every times she concluded a report with "all right...." was like nails on a chalkboard. She also seemed like a completely bought-and-paid-for robot, churning out the "conventional wisdom" with nary an original thought in her head.

But on PBS, she seems much easier to watch, and more intelligent and substantive. The focus is on the interviewees instead of her, and her questioning seems more like basic journalism style interviewing, rather than mindless chatter.

Surely she hasn't changed as a person, or in personality. However, her whole aura seems different, and much more palatable.

I wonder how much our perception of the "news" is shaped by the atmospherics. Would some of the other people who drive us crazy on-air on the cable networks be much more like real journalists if put into a different environment -- or one in which the cable nets actually took the news seriously?

Might Candy Crowley become more of a straight reporter -- instead of a smug sniper -- if she were in different surroundings? Could Kyra Phillips be redeemed if she were actually performing the job of a serious anchor, without all the chatter? Would Anderson Cooper seem less like a self-promoting drama queen if he were forced to merely cover the story, rather than constantly sharing his emotional tribulations?

It also goes beyond the personalities. Would the same news report seem more valid if CNN didn't feel the need to tell us this terrorist is "scary" with distorted imagery and ominous music? Could I actually feel the genuine emotion of a human interest story, if they didn't use tinkling piano music to try and prompt my tearducts?

Anyone have any thoughts on this?

[Benhurst]

1. Judy Woodruff has proven she's willing to sell herself to the

highest bidder.

In her favor, despite all the work she's had done, she sometimes looks quite good, almost lifelike.

[asjr]

2. It is almost like she is two different people. I remember

her when she was on a TV station in Atlanta years ago. When she left CNN I thought maybe she finally got her fill of the network telling her what to say and how to act and react. Now that she is on PBS she can go back to being a real journalist. Unfortunately, there are others out there who seem to follow the network line.

[Armstead]

3. She was also on PBS before she went to CNN

She also seemed more straight and substantial back then. Then when she went to CNN, she became a "personality" and not a journalist.

Maybe it's a chicken-and-egg question.

[asjr]

6. Thanks for reminding me about her

previous sojourn with PBS. I had forgotten about that. But it does make me realize any "personality" now on television has to be a chameleon. Our "newspeople" these days are just actors in one of the greatest farces ever performed. There is nothing real about any of them. Even newspapers today with some of their editorials play the game.

[Ron Green]

4. I've got to disagree with one statement.

Obviously the content is the most important aspect of news...

I suggest that content is no longer the most important aspect of news, and hasn't been since the 1980's, with MTV and Reagan. It's overwhelmingly now about the production values, the look, the atmosphere, the background, the music... the whole image.

TV has come into its own on the death of context and the manipulation of iconography directly connected to the limbic and other lower parts of the brain. For this reason, I believe content is now just filler.

[Armstead]

10. I agree with you

The lack of serious real content is the bigger problem.

But my OP wasn't intended to be all-inclusive. More like looking at one aspect of the bigger picture.

It's more like a chicken-and-egg question.

IMO, the style and substance are related. In an interview, for example, time can be spent on trivial sideshow nonsense or on actual substance. A politician can bed forced to waste their time answering questions about whether they smoked pot inj the 1960's, or they can be asked about what their positions are on issues today.

The pot question is more fun and show-biz. The issues questions are more important, but more boring.

I guess what I'm saying is that the more energy and time are wasted on the style, it is usually at the expense of substance.

[Ron Green]

11. Right - and for me, what's even more subtle, and more dangerous,

is the way they put in some fashion-model bimbo to read the "hard news" in such a way that she's just flashing her lip gloss at you and making you wonder what color underwear she's got on. To me, this is the most dangerous of all, because it truly masquerades as news, while most of us know it's heavily spun through language and context manipulation, if not downright lies. Anderson Cooper serves the same function, although they've given him mostly fluff and weather, as far as I can tell.

I'd almost rather see the missing blonde stories - at least some people are catching on that these are not important. But Carol Lin or Katie Couric talking about the Big Issues - that scares me most of all.

[TreasonousBastard]

5. I always liked Woodruff during her...

first stint on PBS. She seemed pretty much as serious and balanced as you get in the business. I suspect that she just didn't fit into the way commercial news had changed since her NBC days.

Interesting bio:

http://www.nndb.com/people/805/000050655/

[Atman]

7. Contrast Uncle Walter and the stark, simple Viet Nam body count

Every night, that simple over the shoulder graphic Cronkite used to illustrate the travesty of our Viet Nam policy. Contrast it with the big plasma screens and twinkling lights and zooms and booms and I think you have your answer. "News" is now packaged as entertainment. Lots of bright shiny things to distract the viewer from the fact that he's hearing NOTHING.

[Jacobin]

8. Its not the news anymore. Its a freak show

If you notice what they report on, its all bizarre, lurid, sexual, or otherwise prurient interest for the vapid.

Its like the National Enquirer took over all the channels, with Rove faxing memos on what to say, how to look, with advice on background music.

It is utter and poorly done, propaganda, good for consumption of American Idiots.

I refuse to watch any of it.

[hadrons]

9. first sentence says it all: "This may seem trivial..."

and coming from Judy it is