How do you reckon the number of people wanting to see an hour of waffle about Mandela compares to those who have an interest in seeing pictures of waves? I don’t live anywhere near the sea, but turned the news on to see what the storm was doing. Yes it was very important that they told us about Mandela, but my instant reaction was that it really wasn’t a big surprise, and that actually he’d lived a full life and achieved what he set out to. I already knew he’d been to prison, had been president of SA etc. – whilst I acknowledge that these things might have been news to some people, by the time they’d spent 20 minutes on him they’d really done all they could. At which point why couldn’t they switch to some footage of reporters in wellies? Just how long are we required to recreationally grieve for before anything else is allowed to be news?
This is the point – that Nelson Mandela dying (not at all unexpectedly) doesn’t mean that suddenly there is no other news in the world. The fact I’m not going to get desperately upset about a 95yo man who’s lived a very full life dying does not mean I don’t respect him and his achievements. I agree it is the most important story, but that doesn’t mean it’s the only story. As already said, what would have been wrong with spending 10 or 15 minutes on other stories as part of the news bulletin before having all their waffle about Mandela?
I kept the TV on with the sound down, hoping they might cover something else (and like others flipped channels in the hope that there might be some other news), but eventually gave up.
I find that a video is generally worth a lot more than 140 words.