Skip to main content

In Defense of WDRB

In Defense of WDRB

Local news is inherently flawed. Local news is often incapable of living up to national expectations on a low budget and local audience. Evie published a post that had some harsh words for WDRB today. In it, she berates the local news station for airing too many stories about social issues or human interest, and for publishing too many sports stories online. The way she sees it, WDRB sacrifices being able to do in depth coverage on specific stories in exchange for more time for populist stories. While I agree with her in some points, I fundamentally disagree with her opinions on what constitutes a relevant and important story. 

Evie states that on a recent broadcast "there were nine stories that fit under the category of social issues and human interests, but their were zero stories on politics and government, and only one story on accidents and disasters" to support her point that WDRB is airing too many irrelevant stories. While I do see it as slightly problematic that they had no political stories on either the broadcast or website, especially coming up on the midterms, the numbers Evie presents aren't necessarily demonstrating that WDRB airs irrelevant stories. Stories about social issues are often informative, engaging, and necessary. It would be idealized to say they are always good journalism, stories about important issues concerning the local population would show up under this fairly broad category. Human interest can mean a variety of things, but it is a completely separate category from those most pointless stories under sports, crime and celebrity and fluff. Only having one story about accidents and disasters is a positive. Too many news sources have unimportant stories about a baby drowning or one grisly car crash half the world away, those would both probably be accidents. If a news organization only had one disaster story after the 2010 earthquake that killed hundred of thousands in Haiti and displaced millions, that would be a problem. But one accident or disaster story at this point in time is plenty adequate. 

Evie also has legitimate complaints about the number of sports stories. The three minute segment with eight business or economy stories crammed in is also unfortunate. I haven't seen anything of the type from the four airings I've watched, but I would believe it. Local stations and all news organizations at large must balance the wants and needs of the public, though. I have seen some quality stories on WDRB, if sports coverage is the way they finance that then I see it as a good trade off. If a local news organization were to have strictly elitist stories, it would quickly become like KET or C-SPAN and go out of business. There are some legitimate complaints to be hedged against WDRB, but I think some of Evie's criticisms envision a world more utopian than it currently is. It isn't perfect, but from my experience I think WDRB is the best local news station we've got. It isn't like the others where I feel like I am watching The Crime Times. News organizations must balance profit and in-depth coverage and I think WDRB's model, imperfect as it is, is the best Kentuckiana has got. 

Evie's post:
http://eviereedjournalism1.blogspot.com/2018/10/does-wdrb-focus-on-audience-too-much.html?m=1 

Comments

  1. EvieNovember 1, 2018 at 2:20 PM

    Thank you for your feedback Satchel! Your post brought up a new perspective that I had never thought about before. I am sorry if I sounded harsh in my blog post, I didn't mean for it to come out that way. I will make sure that I improve on my mistakes. You are an amazing writer and journalist, keep up the good work!

    ReplyDelete

Post a Comment

Popular posts from this blog

Yellow Journalism and Democracy (Mama Mia, here we go again with historical connections to what we learn in class)

Yellow Journalism and Democracy Mama Mia, here we go again with historical connections to what we learn in class Why does fake news exist? I have briefly dabbled into the topic of fake news in previous posts, but today seems like the perfect time to do a deeper dive as we talked about yellow journalism in class on Wednesday. More specifically, what happens when a news organization is willing to compromise its integrity, truth, and loyalty to the people in order to sell papers or today, ads. This year's J+C freshman class has had it drilled into our minds from day one that a journalist's first loyalty is always to the people, and for good reason. The original era of yellow journalism was born from a natural and capitalist desire of corporations to make money, and from the public's desire to be entertained. In class my classmates and I learned about yellow journalism in the context of Joseph Pulitzer and William Randolph Hearst, not Rupert Murdoch or Ted Turner. But woul...
Post a Comment
Read more

Response to "Consumption of Communication" by Isabella Bonilla

A Response to "Consumption of Mass Communication" Earlier today I had the pleasure of reading " Consumption of Mass Communication " on Isabella Bonilla's blog  "Belladora: Critique This" . Isabella makes some good points I agree with in the post. She points out that "The refusal to have exposure to opposing views creates ignorance within our reality" , and I couldn't agree more. Through out the post, she has a point that I agree with and she certainly doesn't mince her well chosen words. Isabella does make one point that I disagree with. In the final paragraph of her post she says that "(The psychological filter) can be changed at simple will, and pushed curiosity of the mind." I do not believe that the psychological filter can be easily removed, on the contrary I think that it takes extreme persistence and a changed state of mind.  I will be the first to admit, I have a psychological filter. Perhaps mine isn't as...
Post a Comment
Read more

Popcorn: There for the Crowds or the Cash?

Popcorn: There for the Crowds or the Cash? A Response to "Movie Theater Immersion" Marjorie made a post  about how she believes that food common at movie theaters is part of the immersive experience that draws people to the theaters today. While I agree on some points she makes, I would largely disagree in this more lighthearted dispute.  In her post, Marjorie acknowledges that one can get many movie theater snacks at home. She counters that you just can't get the same experience from snacks at home. While it is true that you can't get the exact recipe of popcorn at home, you also have many more options at home. You can go to the grocery and get whatever type of snack you want, whereas you are limited to a select few options at the theater.  The immersive experience of a movie theater refers to how one feels surrounded by a movie and focuses his or her attention exclusively on the film. Snacks do the opposite of that by focusing attention on taste and...
Post a Comment
Read more