Showing The Riots

Last night, all three of the cable news networks were showing non-stop coverage of the riots in Charlotte.  At one point, there were 800 or so rioters in the crowd who were battling police.  After a while, it got to the point where there fewer than 100.  It didn't matter.  The non-stop coverage continued.  My question is why that was.  Is there some need to have non-stop coverage of an angry crowd?  How many times does America need to hear that police are using tear gas and other non-lethal means to push back the crowd?  How many times is too many times for a reporter to describe getting caught in a swirl of tear gas?

Clearly, this was a story that deserved to be covered.  Nevertheless, isn't there a point at which the networks can stop?  Shouldn't there be?  This morning I half expected to see coverage of empty streets in Charlotte with some intrepid reporter standing there saying that the crowd is gone for now, but maybe it will re-form.

It serves no one's interests to have too much coverage of the riots.  They were terrible; one rioter shot another in the head.  There was looting.  There was violence.  There was vandalism.  Nevertheless, I wonder if showing it for hours on end makes it seem to some worse than it actually was.  I also wonder if the endless coverage got others to want to join in.  It just seems like too much to me.