I asked my wise friend " "Why can't the news take the time to educate
us on the great issues of the day?"
He answered:
"I had always believed the purpose of news programming was to shed
light on an issue rather than heat. But in looking at the 24-hour
news channels, there is precious little news to cover for the simple
reason that the newsmakers actually spend time sleeping or doing
other things. And these news channels have lots of air time to
fill. So you do your basic story and then fill the rest of the time
with "talking heads" and "experts" to analize what you have just seen.
The other fly in the ointment is that the news organizations are now
owned by big corporations who expect the news divisions to be
profitable. Profitability is translated into ratings which
translates into advertising dollars--you do the math. This is a far
cry from the days when the networks were owned by the likes of Bill
Paley (CBS), Gen. David Sarnoff (NBC) and Leonard Goldensen (ABC)
where the news divisions were considered "loss leaders" to be picked
up by the networks entertainment divisions. I believe it was during
this era that the great television documentaries were produced and
the birth of the newsmagazine format like 60 MINUTES took place.
Sad to say those days are gone. Television takes advantage of the
fact that we don't read as much as we used to as a nation. We have
become a visually-oriented society. If it can't translate into
pictures, it isn't news.
To answer your question: "Why can't the news take the time to educate
us on the great issues of the day?
Because it isn't profitable to do
so. Where "success" is determined by ratings and profitability,
issues like health care or the new overtime rules are not ratings
grabbers compared to the Scott Petersons and Michael Jacksons and now
Kobe Bryants.
As for me, I find myself paying more attention to public television
and public radio. I am finding out that when I want to be informed,
I stay away from commercial media and tune into public radio and
television. FRONTLINE is one of the great documentaries on PBS and
Bill Moyer's NOW is highly informative."
>
9 comments:
Your "wise friend" describes perfectly the situation I've observed with great distress developing since the late 1950s. The coporation stations where I was, increasingly catered to the "blood and guts" or "crash and burn" approach to news as our mobile units raced to every car crash in town, the bloodier the better. Of the three networks, we were the quality station in town. We did do a number of local live and or taped show specials on important issues but they often drew few viewers.
I believe broadcasters owe viewers such programming in return for the priviledge of using our airwaves. The FCC seems to have little impact on that issue any more. But then, they're kinda stuck with what Congress lets them do. The past six years have been pretty poor for any action anywhere in the best interest of the general public with the FCC prostituted, too.
But you're right about some of the "Big Three Network" programming and other specials, Nightline, other programs offering meaningful information. The advent of cable diluted the dollars. The corps. taking over the news have turned what they produce into worse than pap, especially that one new big network.
Unfortunately, younger generations have no idea what strong news programming is like, so accept what we have. Of course, I've always believed the TV ratings, Nielsen, ARB and others have been one of the great deceptions foisted on everyone. Advertisers liked the idea of looking at numbers, as though they gave the whole viewer picture, programmers had to go along, 'cause the station's sales depts. found it an easier way to sell time. Generally station managers were former sales managers so they played the game, too. Less and less, anyone associated with TV considered the public service aspect of their license, much less any sort of moral obligation to be fairly informative.
Yes, I've been watching PBS for many years now, seeking more and more viable outlets on the Internet, skimming some print publications, a few magazines, and can't quite bring myself to give up certain newspapers.
You expressed my sentiments exactly. If there are two of us, I bet there are hundreds more!
Repeat, reguritate, and repeat again. I am sick of the 24 hour a day stations. Your wise friend is right about the news situation today. I, too long for a program like 60 minutes.
Your friend is absolutely right. And, during the Clinton presidency, the television media learned that Tabloid journalism paid big-time. So, that's the way they went - printing gossip, innuendo, and just plain lies, at times, all for the bottom line.
Couldn't agree more Chancy. I'm kind of sick of a lot of it...give me the 60 Minutes forum any day. I literally get most of my news from the newspaper every morning...and I too like PBS.
I've pretty much given up on the nainstream media & do a lot of reading on the web.
I totally agree with your wise friend. I prefer to watch documentaries on National Geographic and BBC these days.
I can not bear to watch the 24 hr news stations. The thing that bothers me the most is that they are no longer able to simply tell the news. They now seem much more apt to give their personally opinions and impressions. This, in my opinion, is not news broadcasting.
Hi Chancy. As a journalist and one of those analyst/talking head types, I read this entry with great interest.
I agree with you: after you watch the 24/7 news cycle for long enough, you realize there's precious little substance there. That's why I decided to pursue a writing career outside mainstream media (I used to be a producer in radio and a freelance print journalist). It lets me go deep as I carve out one topic and learn everything I can about it. It's much more gratifying than simply grazing.
I was actually interviewed on television today. I'll post the link on my blog later this weekend.
Nice to e-meet you! I love how you write.
Post a Comment