Is it me or is the headline of Obama rescheduling his meeting with the Dalai Lama simply not news? Certainly not worthy of being front page Yahoo!
I also recently saw a TV news story on CNN about the International Monetary Fund meeting in Turkey. Basically, a reporter was standing in a tear gas filled street. He could barely talk, and we watched him run down the street to get to a place where he could breath again. Was three to five minutes of watching a man choke truly necessary?
I suppose I've always been skeptical of what I read, hear on radio or see on TV and online, but I can track my strong distrust of the media to one particular date.
When I saw exactly what unedited media looks like. We heard and sometimes saw reporters on the scene. We felt them fight their natural reaction to run, and we heard the horror in their voices. News unfolded in real time, real life, because no one had a clue what was going on. There was no time to design glitzy graphics and taglines.
Then when things settled down a bit, the news became measured and slick once again. We returned to headlines of Mission Accomplished and Shark Attacks Up Again this year. And silly tales of how Sanjay Gupta contracted swine flu. Swine flu -- aka H1N1 aka Hamthrax --another media kickstart frenzy.
Of course, how NY State now mandates the H1N1 vaccine for all healthcare workers, we don't hear so much. But it may be enough to make many NYC nurses, including a good friend of mine, quit their jobs. Which would mean fewer nurses in an already hurting field.
But things like Ahmedinejad possibly being a Jew? Who cares if he's a hypocrite? As my Muslim friend Ali -- or is his name Mohammed? -- says, "Jews and Muslims were cousins anyway?" And don't get me started on the Letterman revelation. Ok, I'm sorry, i can't resist. Jaded-me thinks this is one of the best examplese of tailored PR since the Jen-Brad-Angie debacle-drama. But I digress...
I don't exactly consider myself part of the news media, but i do know a bit about choosing images and topics for general publication. I prefer honesty, word and image that represent truth as closely as truth can be represented.
So back to Obama and the Dalai Lama? Is it so rare that a president would postpone a meeting, even with someone as high profile as the Dalai Lama,that it's not only worth mentioning, but worth splashing across the front page of everyone's browser? Or is there another agenda behind this sort of article? One that is perhaps designed to mislead instead of inform?
On reading the article, yes, you learn that it all has to do with the delicate balance between the US relationship with China and the role Tibet plays in that. But again, does posting the story itself turn what might have been a minor point into a major issue?