ABC Tests Gay, Lesbian Affection in Birmingham

So they're not even reporting news now...They're manufacturing "social experiments" with hired actors...

I'm glad they have time for this since all of the legitimate journalism is complete for the week...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

Seems to me you're assuming ABC does not have the resources to do BOTH hard news coverage and more innovative features, such as this one.

That's rather a large assumption.

I doubt any of their hard-nosed investigative reporters were pulled off any pressing assigments to do this. More likely their feartures or "human interest" staff was either assigned the story, or came up with it themselves.

And that's what I see this as, more of a feature/human interest piece. I don't think anybody is trying to pass it off as hard news.
As I mentioned in another thread, I was a news reporter for a number of years. Larger organizations have enough staff to assign some only to hard news and others only to more "fluffy" projects such as this.


Also, the subject at hand is a topic of general interest and discussion, so why not try to give some insight into it?

It was sarcasm...

The point is that they are trying to CREATE responses instead of just going out for themselves and LOOK FOR responses...

Here's another example of how the media gets people to create situations...

Kudos, NASCAR Nation, for not taking NBC's bait

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

This is nothing new.

"Human interest" stories have long used candid-camera style tactics.

Everything from reporters in fat suits to white reporters disguising themselves as black people.

To get such a story as the one described in the original post, it would almost REQUIRE using a set up because (except in very very large cities) one rarely SEES gay couples displaying affection in public. Face it - when there's the briefest of kisses between gay couples on tv, there is an outpouring of hatred and nasty emails and forum posts about it. They would be sitting for months to find reactions to gay couples displaying public affection because they'd only see one happen about every ten days - and then ONLY if it were in a fairly large city.

There is nothing wrong with setting up a scenario to find out people's reaction to a given circumstance. It's been happening since the days of "Gentlemen's Agreement" and "Black Like Me."

I see no problem with that whatsoever.

And I think it's a victim mentality that states NBC thought NASCAR fans would be bigots. I think they were going to a LARGE gathering of people of VARYING social, economic and race backgrounds - which NASCAR does attract.

Where else would they try this? At a farmer's market in Boise on a Saturday morning? That would be a good way to get the reactions of 17 people.

I really don't understand the distinction you are talking about.

The "response" is just as legitimate if they pay an actor to perform the potential stimuli, as opposed to if they had stood around waiting for the thing to occur, and then filmed the response.

Your complaint seems superficial to me.
It would be just as justified against the "To Catch a Predator" shows.


It's interesting to watch you phrase that.
"media gets people to create situations"

The people have their responses to the situation.

For cops, it's called "entrapment" if the cop asks the indivual if they want the illegal service for money.
Here, there is no "money" involved.
No "illegal service".

The news stories sound completely passive.

Maybe if we got the government to make it part of a warrantless wire-tapping effort, you'd feel more comfortable with it?

__________________
Right now America spends $700 billion every year on foreign oil. That's our money going overseas when it could be staying here. We have to stop this.
That's why I support the Pickens Plan. Check out the website at www.pickensplan.com. If you like what you see, please join me as a Pickens Plan supporter.

If a certain course of action makes the mouth-breathers furious, then that’s a good policy. – The Practical Environmentalist

Ok...Since we're playing "dogpile on the original poster", I guess I have to clarify...

Here's why this type of "journalism" is atrocious (And the excuse of "This isn't really a new idea" doesn't excuse it)...

This is NOT a human interest story...If it were, they could've easily gone someplace where the actions of the actors DOES happen naturally instead of playing pretend...

In other words, they are introducing scenarios where scenarios don't naturally occur...

If there are same-sex couples NATURALLY showing affection public in certain places, there'd be no need to hire people and make them perform those same actions...

Therefore, their actions are NOT things that happen in everyday society...So calling it a "human interest" story is crap...

There's no reason to ask "What would you do?"...There may be sometime in the future...then let it come into play when that time comes...

Same thing in the other example I've shown...

NBC was questioning "What would be NASCAR fans' reactions if people of Middle Eastern decent were INTRODUCED to the scene...

They didn't let it come naturally...They FORCED it...

And for anyone to say "Well I'm sure there are people of Middle Eastern decent that DO go to NASCAR races.", the question is simple...

Why didn't NBC take the time to ASK THEM instead of just pretending?...

The answer, of course, is because playing pretend might get them the result they want(with video readily available), which is to have problems and dissent within the NASCAR community (which is what they expected)...

And you KNOW it is...Tell me...What makes a better story?...

Or...

If you say they weren't thinking the former, then you are lying to yourself and the forum...

Which was the point of ABC's agenda in the original post...

Do you honestly think that if everybody who responded to seeing same-sex public affection said they didn't give a rat's ass that the piece would've even been shown?...Of course not...It makes for bad news...REALITY, but bad news...and news is more important than reality...:

They could've had 99% not care and ONE GUY say it disturbs him, and you can guarantee that that ONE GUY'S statement would be the thrust of the whole story...because causing controversy is the only thing they crave instead of reporting things as they are...

...which, in this case, shows that what they want shown isn't done...They actually had to HIRE people to do what they wanted...

The overall thing here is simple...The "news(!)" team in this siuation created a hypothetical because they wouldn't take the time to find a situation that was real...

It makes about as much sense as saying "What would you do if everyone who lived in the Italian Market moved into Chinatown?"...

The obvious answer should be, "Let us know when that happens and I'll tell you...but don't make it up and pretend it's a natural occurance."...

__________________
"You get the respect that you give" - cnredd

LOL

I don't know that "dogpiling" is exactly the right phrase because everybody disagrees with you. LOL

I don't know if I would agree that this does not naturally occur in Birmingham.

I DO know that it could be a legal liability for the news service to ask normal gay or lesbian couples to intentionally express affection so that the news crew can ask for reactions. If a couple was attacked, either during the filming or later as a result of the filming, the news service could be held liable in court.

In short, it makes more sense for them to hire actors than to use local couples.

Also asking how someone will react is usually less accurate than creating a scenario and OBSERVING how they will react. Think about it... How many times have people expected that they would react one way in a situation only to find out that their actual reaction was totally different?