LenexatoKCMO wrote:If there is much going on in the way of research and writing - it sure doesn't come through in the final product.
I'm not saying local news should get away with producing substandard material because I cannot stand local news and refuse to watch it, but it bothers me that there's this sense out there that TV is just as easy to produce as a newspaper or radio show. It simply isn't true.
lock+load wrote:And it takes more than a reporter writing a story to put a newspaper together, yet they manage to pack a lot more in.
Right. There's graphic designers and delivery drivers and printers and so and so forth. But, when you break it down story by story, you can crank out a whole lot more information when all you have to do is write something. Think about it from an internet perspective. If you had a blog and you wanted to make a post about something going on today, it might take you 20 minutes to write something. Now, imagine if instead of writing that blog post, you wanted to make a video post. You're going to have to drive to the event, shoot it, maybe do some interviews, come back, edit the piece, do about the same amount of writing and then upload it (and that's not even a live broadcast which requires 10x the resources). How much more time and resources would that take?
Besides, I don't get this argument anyway. The Star uses tons of AP articles in every single paper so it's not like they're writing everything.
You know, Dude, I myself dabbled in pacifism once. Not in 'Nam of course.