28/04/2015

Nightcrawler, journalism and other thoughts


Many people had told me nothing but good words about a film called Nightcrawler, so some days ago, I decided it was time to watch it. And trust me, I am not disappointed at all.

As much as I like 'easy' films that allow you to spend a nice couple of hours, I also love this kind of movies that make you think. As a journalist, Nightcrawler has divided my mind with different thoughts about what my profession has become over the years.

For those who haven't seen the film, a quick summary: Lou Bloom (portrayed by Jake Gyllenhaal) is an unemployed young man who witnesses an accident at night, surrounded by journalists fighting each other for the best shot. That's how he discovers the world of crime journalism. Soon, he starts recording videos of crime scenes, arriving to the places even before the police. Addicted to his risky job, Lou Bloom does whatever he can for the best piece of information, getting in trouble with the law.

I could tell you more, but I don't want to spoil the whole film, so you better discover the rest by yourselves: I strongly recommend it. To make things easier, here you have a direct link to the original version of the movie. 

As I was saying, the ideas shown in Nightcrawler have ignited my inner and almost constant debate about what journalism is nowadays. With no doubt I can say that it's an extremely competitive world, where there's always the need to fight with other media --or even with co-workers-- in order to be the first one. It doesn't matter what you do if you arrive first. Apparently, that's the leading opinion nowadays. I'm not saying all journalists are heartless, scavenger beings searching for glory above all things. But this fact cannot be unseen.

Jake Gyllenhaal in Nightcrawler
Fast and good are two qualities that are quite hard to achieve at the same time, but why 'faster' is more appreciated than 'better quality'? We receive massive amounts of information everyday, but misinformation is more evident than ever. Personally, I prefer reading/watching/listening to deep reportages that have been developed with hard work rather than knowing the slightest details thirty seconds after the events. But it seems that the world isn't working that way anymore, is it?

Current journalism is a really stressful world, and all signs of humanity tend to fade away in some situations. Money leads the planet, and it's the only thing that matters, as it can be seen, for example, on the picture below these lines. Was it necessary? No, everybody knows what's happening in Africa. Does it make money? A lot. So, anything goes? That's the question.

Kevin Carter's photo was meant to criticize the situation but instead, the photographer himself was accused for not helping the child.
Let's see another example: sex is not allowed on TV during the most part of the day, but bloody images can be seen anytime on every news program. I find that division quite disturbing, to be honest. It seems that corpses and war images are perfectly okay to be shown on TV; they are, apparently, harmless. But, what about sex? Oh no, do you want to pervert our kids?

These are some of my so-called worries about journalism. Although there's more to be concerned about, I'd really like to know more opinions. What do you guys think about it? Do you watch/read/listen to news? What would you like to find on TV/newspapers/Internet/radio?

No comments:

Post a Comment