Is this news with an agenda?

I'm watching the local 5 o'clock news and the anchorwoman goes into a story with this gem:

"People on the Northwest side say Asian gangs are bringing violence to their area. One home has been shot up in the past few years. Police say they have stepped up their presence in that area. Alderman XXXXXXXXX says he will personally try to get a handle on the violence in that neighborhood."

With some video of people out in front of a house, that's the entire story. So I'm lsft to wonder ...

"One home"? "Past few years"? How the hell is one home being shot up in the past few years a "trend" to be worthy of a story?

WTF? I'm guessing this is an agenda-driven story to appease the folks in another part of the city that's actually like a war zone and gets all the bad coverage it deserves.

 

Are they trying to tie it into their Olympic coverage? Hell yes, it's an agenda story. How is the alderman going to "personally get a handle" on the problem?

 

"It's those damn immigants"

 

Considering it was "one house shot up" over the "past few years," I think he'll first have to really find the problem.

 

He better go study for his test.

 

When they do a story about gang activity, do they always indicate the race/ethnicity of the gang/s?

 

Because there's never been a white gang. White kids work hard, just like soccer players.

 

Even when it was the bears, I knew it was them!

 

I think ascribing an agenda to a clearly idiotic 5 o'clock newscast is perhaps too generous.

I'm not sure the folks who produce that newscast are intelligent enough to have an agenda. Granted, I haven't seen it, but I've seen enough like it.

I'd say it's an alderman with an agenda who recognized an easy way to get it out and lend it the "legitimacy" of TV news. Dumb as those broadcasts are, a lot of people still take them seriously.

 

Not having seen it, here's an educated guess:

It sounds a lot like a package (an inclusive taped piece with reporter track and sound bites, telling a story in 1:00 to 1:30) that has been cut down to a vo or vo/sot 20 to :40 seconds, read by anchor) for another newscast.

I would guess it made some sense in its original form and was later cut down to a form in which it was out of context and made no sense.

It's far more likely it was incompetence-related than agenda-related.

 

Damn it. I thought this was an MSNBC thread.

 

It's definitely poorly done. I'd like to see more of a pattern before I said it was a deliberate agenda instead of incompetence, though.