Archaeology in News Programs

We've been talking a lot about depictions of archaeology in basic, scripted, and scheduled television. But what about news reports? While it is still archaeology in television, the format is much different than what we are used to analyzing.

Recently, CNN made a live broadcast from "The Situation Room," about the discovery of the lost city of Mirador. Located in Guatemala, these pyramids are the largest in the world by volume. The pyramids are considered the "cradle of Mayan civilization," and hold tremendous value as a potential key to learning about of the past.

Right off the bat, the broadcast starts with exciting music and gushing praise from the first reporter. The man who introduces the story uses the words "fascinating" and "amazing" to describe the upcoming story.  There is also an up-tempo soundtrack. Both of these features are intended to hype up the upcoming segment and entice the viewer to tune in. More than anything, the reporters seem to be constantly reminding us that they were there first and that the information we are seeing is brand new. This is the most apparent bias.

This is hanging around the bottom of the screen at all times.
What do they want us to get from this?

The report also makes use of small graphics on the bottom to the screen that shout "EXCLUSIVE" and "The Lost City of Mirador: The Cradle of Mayan Civilization." Again, these are intended to make the report seem important, and thus more interesting and watchable.

Despite the initial slight sensationalization of the report, I was pleasantly surprised by the actual content. Though they initially focus on the unusual size of the ruins and their current state of danger, a good amount of real information is presented. More importantly, it is conveyed concisely by actual archaeologists and is made interesting. A great example occurs one minute into the clip (link below), as an archaeologist clearly explains why we should care about this discovery in an engaging manner.
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voY8jNcuGe8&noredirect=1&t=1m01s

More relevant, concise information is shown at:
http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=voY8jNcuGe8&t=2m11s

In my opinion, a good portrayal of archaeology

Overall, this broadcast does a great job of quickly presenting their message in an engaging fashion.

I feel that it is very interesting and important to note the background of a television broadcast. In contrast with planned television shows, news broadcasts are put together much more quickly. They have a much broader target audience, and a much shorter time period to present their information. Does this mean that the message is more candid, as there is less time to influence the message? This one clip does not offer a definite conclusion. However, it does make me think that the inherent constraints of live depictions of archaeology in the news cause the presentation to be clear, to the point, and accurate.

What's Right: Information is concise and accurate. They showed good, current shots of the actual site. There was also input from experts.
What's Wrong: Not much. One possible bias in any news source is the bias towards sensationalism. This news source plays up the fact that they are reporting this news first, and that it is important.
Grade: A-