When considering the news criticism, consider the messenger…
…here in the U.S., there is some conflation between television news reporting organizations, and the larger media organizations to which they belong (e.g. MSNBC is an off-shoot of NBC News, is an off-shoot of NBC the network, is an off-shoot of Comcast (God help us)). And for certain there are a large number of uniformed knuckleheads on social media — let’s call them ‘News Neos,’ — throwing around the MSM-bombs and “me too” opinions void of substance. That’s not particularly useful or instructive — but it’s social media. What do you expect? Let’s be honest: 70% of it is vapid, group-think crap, regardless of topic.
And it is certainly annoying… but it’s a start and the only hope we have of directing some kind of intelligent, mass-discourse on what’s gone wrong with mainstream news reporting — television news reporting in particular — and how it hurts our democracies.
The other part of the equation that rarely gets mentioned is that this is partly our fault. We are the consumers of a product and we’re not complaining in large enough numbers to get the problem fixed. “We the people” have become a bunch of intellectually lazy, television-guzzling, reading-averse nimrods who gather up just enough information to go spew an opinion on Twitter or Facebook so the world can “hear us.”
Suffice it to say, that helps no one, including those who “do the spew.”
Much of your article is about the U.K. media and politics. The former is a strange beast from where I sit, the latter something to be jealous of given our non-representative, two party circus and overly divided Presidency and Congress (pick a term, any term). It’s difficult from afar to reconcile your strange combination of news, tabloid gossip, and television news, but what I can tell you is that if you look at the mainstream television news in the United States, then look at the online variants, they’re often sub-standard compared to the BBC News online. Not that the BBC doesn’t have its flaws, but that’s literally the state we’re in — the best “mainstream” news coverage of American events, is written in the U.K. It’s fucking pathetic. And the best in-depth coverage? The Economist — another British publication.
(Note: I do not mean to suggest that one shouldn’t expect excellent coverage from the U.K., rather how is it we can’t even manage to be the best at reporting our own news??)
In theory, if people in the U.S. don’t like the level of coverage on the television, they’re supposed to go to the accompanying “news reporting” web site with the thought that, “hey, if I want something more than three 90 second stories filled with soundbites, followed by 3 pharmaceutical ads, followed by a product placement, rinse and repeat for 30 minutes… maybe I should try their web site for more details.” Sadly, despite the opportunity for these organizations to do great things for news reporting at a low cost, that theory is 100% crap. It’s crap because that opportunity is squandered. Much of the American news reporting online, far from bringing more context and viewpoints and letting the reader decide, simply adds more spin, more juicy quotes, video in the sidebar, link bait, etc, ad nauseam. Is the same shit you get on TV * 2 — drivel, repackaged for the ‘web experience.’
And don’t get me started on talking heads as “political reporting.” Holy… just don’t go there or I’ll be at this computer all weekend writing a novel.
So should we be more specific about what we’re criticizing and who we’re criticizing? Yes. But I don’t want to stifle anyone who is criticizing the media, because bluntly — liberal-leaning or conservative-leaning, 100% of the outlets deserve it. The PBS News Hour gets a pass; despite their own biases, they know how to report professionally, with a lot of detail, and give a lot of time to opposing views. If it’s a 20 minute story, by God they give it 20 minutes or something close, with no ads. Then we’re left to make up our own minds. Imagine that!
American news outlets have lost their spine and have forgotten their duty to the republic: today these clowns report stories in detail only if they’re engaging on an emotional level. Stories run big only if they can partly entertain, partly inform — because that’s what makes them the most money. When criticized for their lack of depth and their scatter-gun approach to which topics they cover, they’ll cry: “…no, you see it’s Ted Turner’s fault. When he brought the 24 hour news cycle to television we were forced to an infotainment model to stay financially viable, and now the people you know, so much social media… we just have to go with it, and part of that is we have to help Apple and Microsoft and others with product placements because people are just so hungry for tech and being connected!”
<facepalm>
Wouldn’t you like to smack them across the face and yell, “that’s not an excuse, dip-shit! Do your fucking job like it means something to you, and to hell with your producer and his ratings whore philosophy! To hell with your ad dollars — give people something they can use to make informed decisions! And while you’re at it, stop with the boner pill ads and the drugs that cure psoriasis but cause immune deficiencies and cancer instead.”
I know I would. <grin>
Bottom line: I would say 85% of the “reporters” are useless as news sources, outstanding as entertainers who feed us a mix of out-of-context facts, sound-bites, and product placements. No man is truly unbiased, but some sure as hell did a better job of eliminating bias from their stories and adding more context, than others. Thank you Walter Cronkite!
The more criticism, the merrier. Those of us in a position of knowledge will simply have to to direct the debate as best we can. Like herding cats, as the TV ad once said.
