Bizarre viral hit leads to bizarre news reporting

By now, most have seen the bizarre video of L.A. CBS-affiliate reporter Serene Branson's Grammy report outside of the Staples Center over the weekend (fun remix here).

Apparently, "health-related problems" caused the gibberish. So it's very possible that a minor stroke was to blame. I laughed the first couple of times watching this, but then I realized that this was probably a serious problem for the reporter. I think this is a very similar situation to most that see the video: laugh at first, then feel bad for laughing. But the Today Show took it to a whole other level with their report on the subject.

Matt Lauer & Co. took five whole minutes out of their programming block to craft a report on Branson's report. Folks, we've gone meta.

Personally, I find it really odd that a national news show would take this much time, put in that much effort, and exude such a serious tone over a viral web video. They had a couple of neurologists give their two cents on the matter, along with a fancy CGI-animation of how the brain is affected by what they think affected Branson.

My favorite part? The new broadcast news staple of showing YouTube comments on-air, with a shot of the computer screen and someone tapping away on the keyboard. Seriously, can't we think of a new way to show a YouTube comment on television?

No one should spend this much time on something of such little importance. And it's also bad reporting-- until Branson goes to the doctor to have anything confirmed, the Today Show is just spouting hearsay and possibilities of what it could be.

But most broadcast news is like this. Call me an idealist, but I would love to see better journalism when I turn on my television.

When I was your age, I didn't even have an iPod! Get off my lawn!

Working at NCTV17, I sometimes do stories at area middle schools. The scary thing is the amount of kids that have cell phones. The scarier thing is that their allowed to play around with them while in the hallways.

I remember just a few years ago when I went to high school at Glenbard West-- we weren't even allowed to listen to our iPod's in the hallway. So kids are allowed to get away with more at an earlier age.

Kids have more distractions as each new year passes, and I think that's where parents get a little weirded out. And with more of these distractions, the harder it is to effectively parent a child.

A growing problem like cell phones for middle school-aged children has a couple of consequences. For one, it gives them unfiltered access to the Internet, a place where a lot of objectionable material lies. Secondly, it gives the child the appearance of more responsibility. Kids want to grow up so fast, and when a parent breaks down and gets their kid a cell phone, it possibly lets them think that they are more grown up than they actually are.

Still though, are either of these consequences that big of a deal? I think regardless of how early the current generation starts to get hooked on the easy access of technology, they will eventually get there. So why not start earlier? Why not give these middle schoolers more chances to become accustomed to the technology that will eventually dictate their lives?

I think it's normal to see the "moral panic" in the majority opinion. People are afraid of change, and this is no different. But I think this is change that could be beneficial.