Community Chat

[QueenDanceALot]

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 wookie said:

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 wookie said:

I want to know what happened too, but not enough to listen to hours of endless speculation. I almost think it's cruel to put the families through the ups and downs of hope followed by disappointment, over and over and over again.

If I were one of the family members involved in waiting for news, I don't think I could go through that. It would be like a jackhammer hitting me in spurts.

I couldn't either. Don't get me wrong, I would most definitely want them to keep looking for as long as feasible, but as for the media coverage, I would have turned it off days ago.

ITA.

I watch Al-Jazeera America in the morning for their brief updates (which leave out all the junk and just report the known facts) on the missing plane. But they also continue to cover a whole host of other topics in the US and abroad.

Which is as it should be.

IMO.

[ROMARY]

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

[Elstongunn]

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

[MyBllueHaven]

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

Some of the viewers are watching to solve a mystery and treating this like a thrilling detective novel. Some are the same audience as the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias junkies. All in the name of "justice" for the victims.

[JaneMarple]

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

Some of the viewers are watching to solve a mystery and treating this like a thrilling detective novel. Some are the same audience as the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias junkies. All in the name of "justice" for the victims.

You're WRONG!!!!

[MyBllueHaven]

On 3/21/2014 JaneMarple said:

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

Some of the viewers are watching to solve a mystery and treating this like a thrilling detective novel. Some are the same audience as the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias junkies. All in the name of "justice" for the victims.

You're WRONG!!!!

Was I referring to you? Obviously since you jumped right in stomping your foot.

[Elstongunn]

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

Some of the viewers are watching to solve a mystery and treating this like a thrilling detective novel. Some are the same audience as the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias junkies. All in the name of "justice" for the victims.

It's always a little tantalizing to speculate in the beginning of a new story, especially when it is this serious. However, after days and days of false reporting, misleading leads, and wild imaginings, it becomes a self-devouring monster.

BREAKING NEWS: We really don't have any new information to share, but let's just rehash the timeline of this entire story for the thousandth time in case we missed one or two people out there...

[MyBllueHaven]

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

Some of the viewers are watching to solve a mystery and treating this like a thrilling detective novel. Some are the same audience as the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias junkies. All in the name of "justice" for the victims.

It's always a little tantalizing to speculate in the beginning of a new story, especially when it is this serious. However, after days and days of false reporting, misleading leads, and wild imaginings, it becomes a self-devouring monster.

BREAKING NEWS: We really don't have any new information to share, but let's just rehash the timeline of this entire story for the thousandth time in case we missed one or two people out there...

****Bingo****

[JaneMarple]

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 JaneMarple said:

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

Some of the viewers are watching to solve a mystery and treating this like a thrilling detective novel. Some are the same audience as the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias junkies. All in the name of "justice" for the victims.

You're WRONG!!!!

Was I referring to you? Obviously since you jumped right in stomping your foot.

I gave my opinion whether you were referring to me or not.

[Melania]

On 3/21/2014 JaneMarple said:

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 JaneMarple said:

On 3/21/2014 MyBllueHaven said:

On 3/21/2014 ktlynam said:

On 3/21/2014 ROMARY said:

'Still', I think it's better to have too much news than too little, hidden, or none at all. Keeps folks 'in check' and 'on their toes', so to speak. We really don't have to watch certain channels. Just watch the local/national that isn't the cable-type of talk-news.

I respectively disagree. Too much of this will make people overwhelmed (the viewing public, anyway...and the reason why there is this over coverage) to the point where they give up in disgust. People can only take so much of the "cry wolf" coverage before they start blocking it out and turning to something else. So in the end, the media is losing audience and will then turn to other stories, and it WILL get swept under the rug.

Vicious circle. Better to pull back and be moderate and reasonable in their coverage.

Some of the viewers are watching to solve a mystery and treating this like a thrilling detective novel. Some are the same audience as the Casey Anthony and Jodi Arias junkies. All in the name of "justice" for the victims.

You're WRONG!!!!

Was I referring to you? Obviously since you jumped right in stomping your foot.

I gave my opinion whether you were referring to me or not.

There's that only "some can have an opinion or agree thing" again, Jane.