Equivoconomy: 2007

The State of the Press

Nowadays, news reporters are more interested in asking questions than getting answers.

During interviews, they ask questions, but do not give time for their guests to answer them. They constantly interrupt and ask questions not to find facts and to draw conclusions from those facts, but to get their own perspective and agenda across to their audience. Wasn't there a time when new reporters were objective? Wasn't there a time when news itself was objective? After 9/11, everything has spin. News stories and headlines are carefully selected depending on the party affiliation of the source. Reporters make their opinions known before they even ask questions to their guests in order to bias their audience. They are rude and disrespectful, and when their guests are finally getting their points across, the reporters announce that they "unfortunately" have run out of time.

I have come to the conclusion that the following factors are responsible for the current state of the media.

1. Huge, profit-seeking conglomerates, with agendas, control the media.
2. Shift of the media towards infotainment.
3. The short attention span of Americans, who have little interest in politics.
4. No accountability.
5. 9/11

First, profit-seeking firms do not care about getting the truth out to Americans. All they care about is getting the largest audience possible for their television station. I think news agency used to feel bound by duty to the American people that they give honest, fact-based reports. Unfortunately, that sense of responsibility has vanished, at least with respect to television. Newspapers are reliable for the most part, but unfortunately they are slowly disappearing... or at least their readership is. Without that sense of responsibility, news agencies can push the line as far as it can go without them getting into trouble. Consequently, the people who own those conglomerates can insert their agenda into the news, and we get stations who whole-heartedly swing to one side of the aisle and end up lying to their audience... cough cough Fox News. Sorry, that's a bit unfair. Fox News isn't the only one... but it certainly is the biggest offender.

Secondly, people now turn to the news not to be informed, but to be entertained. Therefore, we end up having huge amounts of time dedicated to things like "When we come back, find out why doctors are now saying that too much of a good thing can actually be good. Yes that's right, eating more chocolate may lead to a longer life." or "She's at it again. Britney went back to the hair salon, and you're not going to believe what she did. It's all coming up, after the break." Now I completely made those headlines up, but you can imagine hearing those things on any given day... along with about 20 minutes/hour of weather as filler. Why is it tolerated and accepted for news about the Iraq war to be followed by gossip about Ben Affleck, with a not so clever transition in between?
It's because the news is now meant to entertain, and sadly, John McCain isn't one of the most scintillating personalities out there. This also makes it possible for reporters to be offensive and disrespectful to their guests and to make their opinions known... because it's good entertainment to see someone getting grilled on TV. Of course this means that the reporter can never be wrong and the guest can never be right... but who cares when it's all in the spirit of entertainment? Can you sense my sarcasm?

Thirdly, short sound bytes, constant cutaways, enormous, colorful, and constantly moving graphics, a ticker, multiple windows, and glamorous sets are now necessary in order to keep Americans paying attention. At least from the point of view of the news agencies, all Americans have ADD. If they allow someone to speak for too long or do not have that many things going on on the screen, then their audience will lose interest and change the channel. Since these are profit-seeking firms, the ad revenue that they receive from the news (yes the news is no longer a public service but a way for generating ad revenue) depends on ratings. Now, I have a hard time watching CNN, MSNBC, or Fox News without getting an epileptic seizure.

Next, what is the punishment for those who lie? Yes, Dan Rather made a huge mistake, but he is definitely a good man worthy of a tremendous amount of respect. At least he admitted that he made a mistake. I think this type of mistake pails in comparison to the crime of spinning the truth with no accountability whatsoever; making a false statement and admitting you did so is no where near as bad as consciously spinning the truth. So many Americans get their news only through television, making it essential for the news to be honest and genuine. When they have political discussions on the air and people flat out lie, then what are the consequences? For example, McCain announces that it is safe to walk around Iraq unarmed (preposterous!), and John Bolton flat out lies to Jon Stewart when he appears on the Daily Show. When this happens, what can be done? Inconsistencies can be pointed out. People can write about it on their blogs and act as fact checkers. But then people just hear that they lied, hear that what they say is complete bullshit, and then life goes on. People forget that anything ever happened. There is no punishment or accountability. The most seriously offenses are made by those in our government. George Bush, and even more so, Tony Snow, offer complete bullshit to reporters. If the war is going badly, they say it isn't. If mistakes are made, they say they weren't. If Americans are not happy with the decisions of this government, then they say that they are, or will be, or that it doesn't matter. How do you counter such irrationality. If you say that the war is going badly in Iraq (which it obviously is) and they say it isn't.. what can you say to that? How do you counter such an argument? When they have the power, all that matters is what they believe, not what you believe. It's the same sort of thing when Ahmadinejad announces that the Holocaust never happened. How do you counter such an irrational statement? There is nothing you can say other than open your eyes, see for yourself, and admit what you see. In some sense, the people in our government hope that after hearing a false statement over and over again, that Americans will soak it up to the point that they will actually begin to believe it for themselves. For a quick example, remember when John Kerry was called a flip-flopper? Yeah you know.. a flip-flopper.. someone who believes one thing, receives more facts about it, thinks for a time, and changes his mind. Horrible right? Well, the man who invented the term Matthew Dowd admits that Kerry was right:

http://www.nytimes.com/2007/04/01/washington/01adviser.html?ex=1176004800&en=f6d6586ef54b81af&ei=5065&partner=MYWAY

Of course there is nothing wrong with changing one's mind. But apparently, you are able to fool a voter into believing something that isn't true. There is no accountability to deter such use of underhanded tactics.

5. The tipping point was 9/11. Before the terrorist attacks, the news looked a whole lot different. Sometimes, I think that the major 24 hour news networks had one long news story that day that somehow never finished. When the twin towers were burning, people wanted to see footage, hear the news from reporters, and read up-to-date information on the ticker that the reporters already said or hadn't had the time to get to yet. That is the first time (that I can remember) that the news looked the way that it does now. Because of the tragedy on 9/11, people from all over the world tuned in to hear the news, and the news networks received huge rating. =They realized that these graphics and editing techniques can hold people's attention and gain ratings. Thus, it made no sense for the news to go back to the way that it was.

The question is, can it ever go back?