[ACCEPTED] News Flash!

[Jutsa]

Welp, it was either this or an issue about flashing while on camera, and that one's already kinda covered by #51: Streaker in Snooker Game Fiasco.

Meanwhile, I don't think this topic's been covered before, oddly enough.

(Also I have 0 idea why today I decided to write 4 drafts and wanted to do absolutely nothing else.)

Title: News Flash!
The Issue: In an effort to create excitement and interest, major news featured several instances of blaring noises and rapidly flashing colors, causing many discomfort, migraines, and in some cases epileptic seizures.
Validity: All

Option 1: "The last thing I expect in the morning is to be attacked by my television," sighs ardent media critic @@RANDOMNAME@@ while unnecessarily taking an aspirin. "The jabberwocky news anchors regurgitate is painful enough. Professional news and major networks must be barred from inflicting harm on people."
[effect] news scenes of riots are blotted out to protect interest groups

Option 2: "What if we made shows put epilepsy warnings before each instance and program?" suggests children's show editor @@RANDOMNAME@@, showing you a happy face with a warning in colorful, flashy letters. "Then people know when to tune out, and writers made more conscientious. Sure, it won't please everyone, but it's a nice compromise that can be applied to all media."
[effect] cartoons are comprised of 25% warnings telling the audience to stop watching

Validity: Not state-run media
Option 3a: "Why should my show be compromised?" refutes popular and controversial TV show host @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow strobe lights. "Which would you rather watch? A boring old guy in a suit, or a cinematic featuring epic explosions and fast-paced drama? If some people are too sensitive to watch the news, then they can always listen to it on radio or something."
[effect] grocery stores aren't liable if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Validity: State-run media
Option 3b: "Why should our state-wide media service be compromised?" refutes one of your lead news editors @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow strobe lights. "Which would you rather watch? A boring old guy in a suit, or a cinematic featuring epic explosions and fast-paced drama? If some people are too sensitive to watch the news, then they can listen to it on mandatory radios or something."
[effect] the state doesn't hold responsibility if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Title: News Flash!
The Issue: In an effort to create excitement and interest, major news featured several instances of blaring noises and rapidly flashing colors, causing many discomfort, migraines, and in some cases epileptic seizures.
Validity: All

Option 1: "The last thing I'd expect would be to be attacked by my television," sighs ardent media critic @@RANDOMNAME@@ while unnecessarily taking an aspirin. "The nonsense they blurt out is painful enough. Professional news and major networks must not be allowed to do things that could cause physical harm to people."
[effect] news scenes of riots are blotted out to protect interest groups

Option 2: "Surely there's a compromise that could cover all forms of media," suggests children's show editor @@RANDOMNAME@@, showing you a happy face with a warning in friendly letters. "As long as TV shows are made to put flashing color warnings before the show and before the instance, then people can tune out before things get bad. Sure, it won't please everyone, but it's a nice, all-encompassing compromise."
[effect] cartoons are comprised of 25% warnings telling the audience to stop watching

Validity: Not state-run media
Option 3a: "Why should my show be compromised?" refutes popular and controversial TV show host @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow lasers. "Which would you rather watch? A boring old guy in a suit, or a cinematic featuring flashy explosions and fast-paced drama? If some people are too sensitive to watch the program, then they can always listen to the news on radio or something."
[effect] grocery stores aren't liable if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Validity: State-run media
Option 3b: "Why should our state-wide media service be compromised?" refutes one of your lead news editors @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow lasers. "Which would you rather watch? A boring old guy in a suit, or a cinematic featuring flashy explosions and fast-paced drama? If some people are too sensitive to watch the program, then they can listen to it on mandatory radios or something."
[effect] the state doesn't hold responsibility if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Title: News Flash!
The Issue: In an effort to create excitement and interest in their news report, last night featured several instances of blaring noises and rapidly flashing colors, causing many discomfort, migraines, and in some cases epileptic seizures.
Validity: All

Option 1: "The last thing I'd expect would be to be attacked by watching the media," says ardent media critic @@RANDOMNAME@@ while unnecessarily taking an aspirin. "I don't care what kind of nonsense they blurt out. They must not be allowed to do things that could cause physical harm to people."
[effect] news scenes of riots are blotted out to "protect people from harm"

Option 2: "It's not just the news, but surely we could compromise," suggests children's show editor @@RANDOMNAME@@, showing you a happy face with a warning in friendly letters. "As long as TV shows are made to put flashing color warnings sufficiently before they happen, as well as at the beginning of the program, then people can tune out before things get bad. Sure, it won't please everyone, but it's a much less draconian compromise."
[effect] cartoons are comprised of 25% warnings telling the audience to stop watching

Validity: Not state-run media
Option 3a: "Why should my show be compromised?" refutes popular and controversial TV show host @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow lasers. "It's my show, I should be able to do what I want! And would you want to watch us if we were boring? If some people are too sensitive to watch the program, then they can do something else, like listen to it on the radio or something."
[effect] grocery stores aren't liable if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Validity: State-run media
Option 3b: "Why should our state-run media be compromised?" refutes one of your lead news editors @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow lasers. "It's the government's show, and we should run it however we want! And, c'mon, you want excitement to engage the masses, don't you? If some people are too sensitive to watch the program, then they can listen to it on mandatory radios or something."
[effect] the state doesn't hold responsibility if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Title: News Flash!
The Issue: In an effort to create excitement and interest in their news report, last night featured several instances of blaring noises and rapidly flashing colors, causing many discomfort, migraines, and in some cases epileptic seizures.
Validity: All

Option 1: "The last thing I'd expect would be to be attacked by watching the media," says ardent media critic @@RANDOMNAME@@ while unnecessarily taking an aspirin. "I don't care what kind of nonsense they blurt out. They must not be allowed to do things that could cause physical harm to people."
[effect] news scenes of riots are blotted out to "protect people from harm"

Option 2: "It's not just the news, but surely we could compromise," suggests children's show editor @@RANDOMNAME@@, showing you a happy face with a warning in friendly letters. "As long as TV shows are made to put flashing color warnings sufficiently before they happen, as well as at the beginning of the program, then people can tune out before things get bad. Sure, it won't please everyone, but it's a much less draconian compromise."
[effect] cartoons are comprised of 25% warnings telling the audience to stop watching

Validity: Not state-run media
Option 3a: "Why should my show be compromised?" refutes popular and controversial TV show host @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow lasers. "It's my show, I should be able to do what I want! If some people are too sensitive to watch the program, then they can do something else, like listen to it on the radio or something."
[effect] grocery stores aren't liable if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Validity: State-run media
Option 3b: "Why should our state-run media be compromised?" refutes one of your lead news editors @@RANDOMNAME@@, entering your office with blinding rainbow lasers. "It's the government's show, and we should run it however we want! If some people are too sensitive to watch the program, then they can listen to it on mandatory radios or something."
[effect] the state doesn't hold responsibility if someone fails to notice a tripping hazard

Edit: Changed "SUBMITTED" to "ACCEPTED".
Prior last edit: July 19, 2020.

[Apabeossie]

great issue idea! at least for me

[Australian rePublic]

Option 3b- Uh, you do realise that the government is deciding what to do with their show?

[Jutsa]

Yes.

It's kinda hard to write this in a way that also applies to state-run media, but the idea is that the editor's stance be taken by the government.
I.E. you want flashing lights, also. I'll be sure to sneak that in, though.

[Ko-oren]

The description doesn't make it too clear what people are watching: TV?

I also wouldn't per se mention mandatory radios in 3b, which is an existing policy. It feels a little out of place to push that policy in this issue.

[Trotterdam]

The description doesn't make it too clear what people are watching: TV?

Well, I somewhat doubt you have rapidly flashing colors in a radio newsstation or a newspaper.

[Ko-oren]

The description doesn't make it too clear what people are watching: TV?

Well, I somewhat doubt you have rapidly flashing colors in a radio newsstation or a newspaper.

There's internet, which has a different userbase and might be subject to different laws.

[Jutsa]

That's true, but I think the medium doesn't affect the premise too much.
On top of that, it'd be rather hard to write things differently between nations that do and don't have internet access,
but afaik it's impossible (or at least, ignored) to ban television sets.

[Trotterdam]

There's internet, which has a different userbase and might be subject to different laws.

Nowadays most TV broadcasts are also available as livestreams.

[Jutsa]

Self comment: Try to put a bit more humor into it. It's missing some flash.

[Jutsa]

Gonna bump this, tweaked some of the words and such. Still think it's a bit dry, but I figured I'd bump just in case there's a more broad issue with the draft,
one I'd be failing to see due to the trees.

[Trotterdam]

Validity: Not state-run media
Option 3a: "Why should my show be compromised?"

Validity: State-run media
Option 3b: "Why should our state-run media be compromised?"

In nations that have state-run media, you don't need to constantly remind people that it's state-run media. That's just how it is. The other version doesn't explicitly say "privately-run" - think how silly it would sound to keep putting that on everything. (If anything, there would be more justification for explicitly saying "privately-run", if it's done with the implication of "I own this show, so it's up to me what goes on it, the government should mind its own business".

Just "our media" will do, or "the state's media" if you want to still highlight it in a way that sounds more natural.

[Jutsa]

Thanks.

[Pythaga]

In an effort to create excitement and interest, major news featured several instances of blaring noises and rapidly flashing colors, causing many discomfort, migraines, and in some cases epileptic seizures.

I'd change major news to major TV news networks to make it clear from the beginning exactly what medium is being touched on.

"Many discomfort" isn't right, I'd suggest changing it to much discomfort.

[Trotterdam]

"Many discomfort" isn't right,

No, it's proper English. It means "causing discomfort to many".

[Jutsa]

Changed some of the writing a little, though not much. I think option 1's speaker's a bit more critical while option 2 is much shorter while actually having slightly more content.

[Candlewhisper Archive]

Cool. Looks good.

[Jutsa]

I'll take that as a reassurance to my already existing desire to move this to last call.

I still kinda wish there was some way I could make this more silly, but I guess not all drafts have to be downright preposterous, do they?