NEWS MEDIA
The Real Reason Why News Is Sensationalized — And How You Can Tell
This article is in my “Political Analysis” section.
Introduction: You turn on the TV and pull up the news to quickly catch what happened today. Immediately you’re bombarded with correspondents ranting about some politicized drama on Capitol Hill and about how someone was being “xenophobic” or “unpatriotic” or whatever. You’re kind of annoyed because you just want some quality information, but you feel like you’re having a political agenda shoved down your throat.
If you’ve ever experienced this kind of thing (I know I have), then you’re not alone. Lots of people see news networks as pundits who push their political beliefs onto people rather than practice objective journalism. While it makes sense why people believe that, it’s actually not the case — not really. The truth is that various news organizations at the end of the day are businesses looking for more views. Good viewership comes when people watch your programming, and people often watch whoever yells the loudest. In other words, whoever has the most drama or controversy. The truth is that news media doesn’t have a “liberal bias” or a “conservative bias” — it has a “viewership bias.”
Section 1: News media has one goal: to be addictive
I’m sure that at some point in your life you’ve watched the news on channels such as CNN, MSNBC, FOX, or elsewhere. You’ve probably noticed that they usually do catch your attention — regardless of how much you actually learned. You may not realize it, but that’s exactly what the networks want. While they do give some information and opinions/analysis so that you think they’re providing value — which motivates you to come back — news networks are more focused on getting you to tune in than providing quality information.
Now that may sound like a bold claim. It is pretty common for news anchors to project some kind of political opinion while reporting. Take CNN’s Don Lemon, who regularly says stuff like “The President [Donald Trump]… is a fraud and a con man, and the fraud and the con is on us, the American people” or maybe Tucker Carlson from FOX: “Iraq is a crappy place filled with a bunch of, you know, semiliterate primitive monkeys.” After hearing such politically charged statements, it’s pretty clear why people see networks as pundits more than journalists. However, if you look closely at TV news channels, you can find cracks in their disguises and see the “viewership bias” clearly. Each network is different, so we’ll examine them case by case, but they all share this same fundamental bias no matter what the disguise is.
Section 2: CNN and MSNBC — The supposed “liberal bias” in news
Let’s start with CNN and MSNBC, two networks that present themselves as objective and factual but are both frequently accused of being liberally biased, a reputation that comes from their hosts frequently criticizing President Trump, among other things. However, is it fair to actually call these networks “liberal”?
The issue with this claim is that these networks spend lots of energy on a select few subjects that are guaranteed to get attention, but they put considerably less effort into other issues that liberals actually care about. If you go to the Youtube channels of CNN or MSNBC, you can see what content they prioritize, as Youtube is a gold mine for views. You’ll usually find stuff on Trump-related scandals (e.g. the Russia probe), the immigration crisis, what politicians are up to and plans for the impeachment of Trump, and — more recently — discussion of the Democratic presidential candidates (who often talk about Trump). While these can be considered important topics that liberals may have strong positions on, you’ll notice that there’s much less coverage of other issues that liberals care about like climate change, abortion rights, college tuition, gun regulations, etc. They choose issues that they can give strong opinions on to add spice to the programming, and while they do often give liberal viewpoints, they’re more focused on doing good business than promoting the left.
Don’t believe me? Take a look at the viewership of various CNN and MSNBC shows. As examples, CNN’s Chris Cuomo and MSNBC’s Rachel Maddow both primarily focus on the issues I mentioned above. Cuomo’s viewership has increased by 23% since last year, and Rachel Maddow holds the most-viewed cable program in her time slot. While both hosts often attempt to provide solid arguments and details and do have valid points, their networks steer them towards this content because that’s what gets views.
Compare those numbers to another CNN show: Fareed’s Zakaria’s GPS, which is known for fact-based reporting and frequently discusses issues that no one else talks about. This show definitely has a solid viewership base and good ratings, but it’s not on the same level as the other shows. Because there’s less “spice” on this program, it’s understandable that it doesn’t pull in quite as many viewers. Notice also that CNN only airs Zakaria’s GPS once a week in a morning time slot, much less competitive than Cuomo’s and Maddow’s nightly time slots.
To hammer home that CNN and MSNBC aren’t as devoted to the left as some may think, look at their sponsors. CNN is funded by the Petroleum Institute and Kocher Institute while MSNBC is funded by America’s Natural Gas Alliance — big oil companies. If these networks truly care about promoting the left then why do they accept help from companies that liberals want to put in check? It’s not like the networks try to hide this, either. The amount of time CNN spends promoting these companies through ads is about 13 times the amount of time they actually discuss climate-related news. They’re not afraid to do this because they’re not really devoted to the left — they’re devoted to views and ratings because before anything else, news networks are businesses trying to stay on top.
Section 3: FOX News — Is it really a “propaganda” machine?
FOX News has a reputation for being “different” from everyone else — it says outrageous things proudly without apologizing and is the only big network that’s openly conservative. The thing is, this manner of distinguishing itself is often simply another (very successful) strategy to get views and higher ratings.
Unlike CNN and MSNBC, who choose sensationalized topics, FOX takes a more direct approach by making sensationalized statements that their viewers can’t get enough of. This ranges from politically charged and outrageous contentions to snarky comments that make them sound more genuine and natural. Either way, they’re meant to grab attention and stand out.
Let’s consider anchors Tucker Carlson and Sean Hannity, two of the top-rated hosts in television with Hannity being at №1 (FOX actually holds 10 of the top 15 spots in ratings). Furthermore, while FOX’s Youtube videos generally receive no more than 150K viewers, Hannity regularly pulls in well over 500,000 viewers while Carlson frequently breaks 1 million.
Why are they so popular? Well, both men are blunt in their reporting styles, frequently nailing left-wing politicians to appeal to their viewer bases. For example, Hannity has repeatedly called for Hillary Clinton to be jailed for her email scandal, while Carlson referred to former National Security Advisor John Bolton as “demented” and cracks derogatory jokes about various politicians. Regardless of your views on all these people, these loud statements make the anchors seem unfiltered and “real,” unlike reporters on other networks who are generally much more careful about their language. This style is appealing to viewers and is simply more entertaining to watch.
Because of such comments, opponents are often quick to label FOX as a right-wing propaganda machine. However, while FOX hosts often take conservative viewpoints, that’s not the primary motivation of the network. Like the others, they’re concerned with views more than anything else — they encourage their hosts to report with a conservative lens to provide that “unique” perspective that people are missing, but they fall short of becoming the propaganda machine, as we’ll see through their reactions to their hosts’ actions.
Here’s an example: Sean Hannity spoke at one of President Trump’s rallies last year and referred to all the reporters at the event from other networks as “fake news.” Now it’s fine for Hannity to support Trump, but even as a conservative reporter, Hannity has an obligation to be somewhat impartial in political affairs. For many, his attendance crossed the line from journalism to propaganda. The interesting part is that FOX itself told Hannity not to appear at rallies and said they didn’t “condone” his behavior — but they didn’t actually punish him (e.g. take him off the air).
If FOX was primarily motivated by promoting the right, then they would have allowed Hannity to do this because that would help that purpose. Instead, they chastised him because they didn’t want to be perceived as a propaganda machine. However, their true motivation lies in what they didn’t do — they didn’t actually punish Hannity. Why would they? FOX knows that Hannity is an asset to the network, and taking him off the air (even temporarily) would hurt ratings. FOX is careful to preserve its image as “objective enough” while still holding up its popular hosts to maximize its viewership. The whole interaction demonstrates that FOX is more motivated by ratings than politics.
Am I saying that FOX is not actually conservative? No, they definitely are. What I am saying is that while FOX does like to take conservative viewpoints and to be louder than the rest, it does this because this is a fantastic strategy to give viewers something “different” that they’ll always want to come back to.
Section 4: BBC News — When “objective” isn’t always objective
Unfortunately. even the networks that are known as “down-the-middle” and “objective” have these viewership biases — because they, too, are businesses — and for that, we examine the BBC. While BBC News is generally more restrained in its presentation and appears to be completely concerned with facts, you can see the cracks in their armor if you look closely.
Consider BBC anchor Andrew Neil, who’s known for a confrontational interview style in which he pressures his guests with tough questions and snarky comments. This style isn’t the most efficient for obtaining information, as it has made his conversations become hostile and sometimes unproductive. The network even has a contentious reputation with Neil because he’s a loose cannon and because he has extremely radical political views. Yet they don’t push back against him too hard. Because Neil’s style often creates some drama that makes things interesting to watch, his programming gets views quickly, benefiting the network’s viewership.
The most recent example of this in action was his interview with Ben Shapiro. The interview devolved into a verbal fight that ended with Shapiro cutting it short and calling it a “huge waste of time.” This happened because Neil pressured Shapiro with button-pushing question, asking things like whether or not Shapiro’s pro-life beliefs would take us back to the “dark ages” and telling Shapiro after he had made a rude comment that “Mr. Shapiro, if you knew how ridiculous what you said was, you wouldn’t have said it.” Neil backed Shapiro into a corner and made him blow, rather than trying to find common ground, making the whole interview counter-productive as he didn’t really get his questions answered.
Why doesn’t BBC chide Neil for his type of reporting. Well, it has to do with views of the interview. On Youtube, this interview has 3.8 MILLION views, miles ahead of the rest of BBC’s videos which typically don’t exceed 1 million. Because the news of Ben Shapiro’s outburst spread like a wildfire, the views racked up fast. Clearly, Neil’s controversial reporting style is an asset to the network. There are plenty of other examples of Neil triggering his guests or making dramatic statements to get attention, which I’ll link below. The point is, while Neil does make valid points and is a formidable interviewer who doesn’t tolerate bullshit on his programming, his reporting style often prioritizes “spice” and ratings over simply providing good information. The BBC knows this, and they allow it because, like every other organization we’ve discussed, they prioritize ratings and viewership.
Conclusion:
At the end of the day, I think we have to realize that it’s actually pretty hard to place total faith in television news. Because it competes with everything else on TV, this form of news has to grab the audience’s attention to stay on top. That often comes at the sacrifice of quality information, as networks either avoid topics that have substance or lack style, or they allow “sensational” reporting to cloud the ability to get and present valuable information. It’s a hard truth, but once you realize that, you’ll have a better understanding of how to approach watching the news and how to filter quality information from all the bullshit that’s out there.
So what do you guys think? Let me know down in the comments, and remember to Stay Cynical.
