Closer
Written by Major Tom
Filed under: Global Politics
August 25, 2006
CNN’s newest news commentary program “The Situation Room” often looks like those sleek and ultra-hitech control room that we often see on Hollywood movies, in fact even the way its commentators speak are so analogous to a very busy war room with every one seems to be up on their feet, as if global war had just started. Well, this kind of program packaging seem to excite the viewers to stay stuck and be captivated by the fast-paced reporting and lustrous graphics popping and hopping through the television screen. My main concern on this is that sometimes the speakers in this news program seem to exaggerate the situation or the issues most of the time that I often felt something is so grave is happening in America or the Middle East whilst they speak, right at that very moment that they were reporting—especially when Wolf Blitzer passes on the mike to a guy who explains the current subject like a weatherman replete with a giant visual effect on his back, like those we see on weather reports. Since when did war reporting became the territory of newsmen who looks like they’d trained so hard to become weathermen someday only to find themselves reporting the bombs falling on Beirut instead of the upcoming typhoon approaching Hong Kong or The Philippines. They should be so lucky ending that way but I just don’t feel very comfortable hearing news about damaging wars like they were glossy Hollywood films.
For example this morning, “The Situation Room” centered its reporting on the nuclear debacles concerning the world today, especially now that Iran is so adamant on not agreeing to halt its uranium enrichment program despite the U.N.’s deadline being fast-approaching. Then it was reported there that Israel has just purchased two new nuclear weapons capable submarines from Germany at a whopping cost of $1.3 Billion. After which, “The Situation Room” speculated whether or not North Korea has most recently became capable of building for itself nuclear weapons.
Thus The Situation Room suggest: “Are we closer towards a nuclear holocaust?”
This question appeared to me this morning like a blot of lightning even if Mr. Wolf Blitzer did not categorically ask that question on air. Maybe CNN is just being a little irresponsible, putting some spice into what are supposed to be straight news items, glossing them up further and make that news viewing experience of its patrons as sublime as watching a Jerry Bruckheimer action flick.
Or maybe Mr. Blitzer and company had some good points and hitting the target bulls eye? Are we really closer to that most dreadful of idea? A nuclear war?
With lunatics at the helm of Iran and North Korea, a ‘nuclear holocaust’ scenario is not too far-fetched. Remember, the nut in N.Korea would prefer to starve his own citizen so that he can feed his army with his country’s meager food supply. And the other nut in Iran, well… he’s always been a loud-mouthed **hole who longed to see the destruction of the state of Israel.
Comment by snglguy — August 25, 2006 @ 4:20 pm
To sngl: It’s unlucky that these nations are being run by so-called belligerent leaders, “nuts” in other words and that makes the situation worst than what it should be.
Comment by Major Tom — August 25, 2006 @ 7:40 pm
This has got to be the ultimate madness — nuclear holocaust. Imagine the end of our entire human civilization on account of a few self-centered war-mongers intent on destroying each other.
But then again, I always believe that we all come from good, and somehow they will think at least five times before pushing the button. No one would want to carry such baggage into the afterlife. Look at the Cuban missile crisis at the height of the cold war. In the end, the Russians backed down.
I say, these are mere macho posturing: big boys with their big guns.
Comment by eric — August 26, 2006 @ 6:04 am
Selling news is big money and at the end of the day they need to make profits.
As a journalist you need to come up with some extraordinary news to capture the interest of the public.
For sure there are a lot of crazy people around who are foolish enough to start a (nuclear) war. We already got a Stalin & Hitler and I am sure history will give us more of such leaders.
But I don’t think we should live in fear. The probably that we die from a car accident or cancer is still bigger…
Comment by Sidney — August 26, 2006 @ 7:25 am
I agree with Mr Sidney that news company needs to sell news and the probability of death or being killed by a nuclear bomb is nil at this time.
Consider this, no-one will survive the nuclear holaucast. No country has ever invented something to protect people from nuclear fall-out.
Comment by myepinoy — August 26, 2006 @ 2:42 pm
To eric: I hope that’s the case eric. Maybe, there’d be a time when this world is rid of such “warmonging” leaders. Or maybe there’d be a time where every nuclear armanent is banished. And I hope it’s not merely wishful thinking.
To Sydney: I can’t help but wonder what would have happened if a guy like Hitler had his hand on a red button. But you’re right, an individual had to be so insane and dysfunctional to ever push that button, and no person like that could ever stay in a power position.
To myepinoy: I think that if worst comes to worst, a nuclear holocaust may not still happen. Maybe a regional nuclear conflict could ensue in areas like the Middle East and although the chances of such is not as likely this time, nations should always be wary and not caught sleeping when it happens. God forbids.
Comment by Major Tom — August 26, 2006 @ 3:08 pm
If a country has nuclear programme, it always pose a threat. But some irrational leaders use this as a threatening weapon. Mindless of any reactions.
Nuclear holocaust? If they’re in that hallucinating, dangerous state. If they want to annihilate humankind.
Comment by ipanema — August 27, 2006 @ 10:33 am
To Ipanema: That’s the irony of it all; some countries who gained nuclear technology seem to always be headed by some irate individual.
Comment by Major Tom — August 27, 2006 @ 10:40 am
yes, i know what you’re saying. i think reporters and anchor people should just ask the experts, those who really know what they’re talking about. interviews are better. a reporter is not an expert. never an expert.
Comment by atticus — August 27, 2006 @ 10:59 am
To atticus: Thanks for pointing this out Atticus; Now I know why it was sometimes uncomfortable to see that guy on TV explaining the war even though he looks like a weatherman to me more than anything….
Comment by Major Tom — August 27, 2006 @ 12:13 pm
CNN has this tendency to sensationalize events just to garner ratings. They do have all the tools and paraphernalia to make the audience understand the situation better but at the same time they build up some sense of paranoia. So if their aim is to spread information in some overdramatic style, it is working. But they are also making people more paranoid than they already are.
Comment by Daphne — August 27, 2006 @ 8:48 pm
To Daphne: That sems to be the case Daphne although I still subscribed that generally CNN do have excellent journalistic quality and above par integrity (despite being owned by heavily politicized Ted Turner); it is just that lately, some of its programming styles goes radically offbeat from what we are used too, where news is just not news, but also a spectacle for the senses.
Comment by Major Tom — August 28, 2006 @ 5:05 am