• 戰爭劇場

    米蟲的一篇文章,讓我注意到「infotainment」(訊樂?資樂?)這個字,還有Frank Rich這個人。

    Frank Rich是紐約時報的專欄作家,前陣子出了一本名為【 The Greatest Story Ever Sold: The Decline and Fall of Truth from 9/11 to Katrina】的書,並在這本書大力抨擊美國新聞媒體與布希政府沆瀣一氣地將世界的真相給隱藏了起來。

    紐約時報的一篇書評,【Theater of War】,是這樣寫的:
    Intimidation is only part of the story, however. The changing nature of gathering and publishing information has made mainstream journalists unusually defensive. That more people than ever are now able to express their views, on radio shows and Web sites, is perhaps a form of democracy, but it has undermined the authority of editors, whose expertise was meant to act as a filter against nonsense or prejudice. And the deliberate confusion, on television, of news and entertainment has done further damage.

    .....

    THERE may be one other reason for the fumbling: the conventional methods of American journalism, marked by an obsession with access and quotes. A good reporter for an American paper must get sources who sound authoritative and quotes that show both sides of a story. His or her own expertise is almost irrelevant. If the opinions of columnists count for too much in the American press, the intelligence of reporters is institutionally underused.
    對這議題有興趣的朋友,可以聽聽下頭這個專訪。然後,更進一步的想想,在台灣政治人物與新聞媒體的合謀下,我們又離真相(理)有多遠?又或者,坐在劇場中看著戰爭開演的我們,除了吃爆米花、幹譙台上演員外,還能做些什麼?


    powered by ODEO
  • You might also like

    1 comment:

    米蟲 said...

    這標題下的真好.

    再補充一點,wiki 對infotainment的定義:http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Infotainment

    它把新聞分為"hard news" 和 "soft news", 而soft news就是infotainment.
    可是劃分這兩個的定義已經越來越模糊,誰還能說infotainment 只是比較不重要,比較沒有時效性的'新聞'(根據wiki的定義)? 而傳統"hard news"的定義包括政治新聞,但最常被扭曲/戲劇化的不就是傳統的"hard news"-政治新聞嗎?

    wiki裡還有提到關於新聞走向infotainment,一個很重要的因素或是引起爭論的地方, 就是媒體如何決定一個新聞的價值. 或許你節錄的最後一句給了某種的解答....


    (Frank rich在紐約電台的專訪裡還有提到一點蠻有意思的,現在很多新聞台的母公司其實是entertainment 公司.像ABC是迪士尼的子公司; cnn是華納的子公司,這應該也是一個原因吧,不過不知道這是不是只在美國有這樣的情形...)

Powered by Blogger.