Phil, I've got to say that I can't agree more. (on a sidenote, Beth, I promise promise promise that I will get that paper to you, its just a matter of time
)
Sanddrag mentioned that you can always change the channel, Andy countered that it's all the same. I say, read a magazine. Once per week, Time or Newsweek will come out with at least a slightly more "all-encompassing" view of the situation. With pictures. And no talking heads. And Point-Counterpoint articles. And it is available in a gorgeous, convenient size that fits in most backpacks/hands. And, best of all, if the reader disagrees, they can either flip the page, give it away, or burn it to a crisp with a handy-dandy lighter.
I guess what always amazes me is that reporters get first dibs to a scene. A scene where they come in, no less, dressed well, and perhaps even with a fresh change of clothing or two, sporting bottles of water and "refreshments" for down time between filming. Is it shared? Not likely. Is there probably enough to go around to everyone? Perhaps not. Could the reporter give up trying to incite already upset citizens for just an hour or two and start helping them out instead? Yes.
I know that there are some reporters that do help in these situations, but a majority do not. For once, I'd love to see some of these folks just practice what they cry out for. If someone is dehydrated, give them your water. If they need help clearing debris, put away the cameras and get to it.
It's just a thought. Not everyone can see through the blinding glare of the TV screen into the real world.
