The Pros and Cons of Live Crosses on Television News
The use of live crosses can be observed all over the television news. It does not matter where something happens — every respectable news channel has a correspondent close by that can cover the news and report directly from where the action happens. However, is this always necessary? Or even useful?
Going live turns out to be a very useful tool most of the time. We can get direct, first-hand information from experts who actually are where a story takes place. Why should we believe a news reporter who is sitting in a comfortable chair, in a warm and safe studio, when he is trying to tell us about the living conditions in Aleppo? Having someone who is actually there, who can report what he or she is seeing with his/her own eyes, adds an immense amount of credibility to the reporting of the story.
However, this tool is clearly overused. On CNN, for example, every news story seems to make use of it these days. On Thanksgiving weekend, I was watching CNN, when I noticed a correspondent reporting from a beautiful, sunny beach in Palm Beach, Florida. I momentarily wondered what might have happened on that beautiful beach. The answer: Nothing. Apparently, Donald Trump was spending his Thanksgiving weekend somewhere in Palm Beach, so CNN sent a reporter to Palm Beach. Obviously, they could not place the correspondent directly on the front lawn of one of Trump’s homes, so they just placed the reporter randomly. He reported from that beach for several days, essentially not adding anything to the story that could not have been added from any other random place on earth. In this case, going live did not add anything — whatsoever — to the news value of the story.
All in all, going live is a very important and useful tool that can be used by television news channels. However, it should only be used if it adds something to the news value of the story. Do not overuse it. If you do, it will just be a waste of time and money.
