(originally written for ALARM Magazine in August 2004)
These days it’s almost cliché to talk about how terrible television news is. Talking heads, catchy sound bites, provocative b-roll and epilepsy-inducing graphics are such the norm that no one feels the need to even point it out anymore. It used to be a hot subject of debate, at least among academics and professional journalists, but in the past two decades the real journalists have been marginalized, anchor seats have been awarded to the broadcasters with the best hair, and the academics... well, who cares about them, right? Unless you read a good paper or web magazine, the only academics you hear from anymore are being talked over by Chris Matthews.
There are a few bastions of good journalism left on television, but they are few and far between. Unlike his network colleagues, Mike Wallace’s journalistic integrity hasn’t been completely enveloped by a drive to boost ratings. BBC International offers excellent international news coverage. You know, like, important shit going on around the world that doesn’t directly impact American vacation plans or the price of gas for our ginourmous vehicles. Frontline is hands-down the greatest televised journalism since the days of Edward R. Murrow. C-Span at least lets you see what’s actually going on without couching it in condescending commentary while absurdly uninformative headlines crawl across the bottom of the screen.
This debate is largely dying due to the nature of ad-supported television. The ratings are up and agencies are buying ad time. So, what’s the problem? It’s the old “we give the people what they want” argument. Why make 60 Minutes when people are watching Dateline? Why emulate the BBC if Americans would clearly rather watch Fox News Channel? Corporate ownership of media is a given, so vying for viewers over producing compelling journalism is simply the nature of the beast. Occasionally I indulge my bleeding heart tendencies and fantasize about an America with more dedication to independent public television. But I also occasionally fantasize about winning the lottery, and at least there is a very small statistical possibility of that happening.
Most networks still try to claim that their news divisions are run separately from the rest of the organization, but this claim is hardly believable anymore. Even MSNBC, which probably offers some of the best (or least deplorable) cable news coverage has been made a shill for the parent company’s entertainment division, offering entire programs about the new NBC fall lineup. Fox caters to the lowest common denominator and garners the some of the best ratings, so other networks cater to their own sales divisions by imitating Fox. Basically, the whole dial has gone to hell and it doesn’t look like it’s ever getting any better.
The dearth of decent TV journalism in America is particularly evident (as well as particularly frightening) in this monumental election year. Even if you take it for granted that TV news isn’t going to give you the whole story it is still hard to believe some of the things that receive so much airtime. The United States is involved in two different wars, the economy is tanking, most of Europe hates us, Africa and the Middle East are in even more turmoil than usual: the world is coming apart at the seams. What are we spending our time and intellectual effort discussing? Kobe Bryant, Lacey Peterson, Britney Spears... There has rarely been a more appropriate use of the term “ad nauseum.”
Even the coverage offered about pertinent issues is off-target at best. As of August, according to the television news outlets of America, the key issue in the most important US election in 50 years seems to be John Kerry’s war record. This is more than puzzling considering that Kerry did two tours in Vietnam, saw a good deal of action and was awarded several commendations while George Bush was AWOL from the Texas air national guard. Even if (and this is a huge “if”) Kerry’s war stories have been exaggerated or somehow distorted over time while George Bush dutifully did his service, doesn’t the comparison still favor Kerry in terms of who sacrificed more for their country at the time? Shouldn’t that be the end of the discussion? Moreover, shouldn’t we put all this name-calling aside and talk about their respective plans for running the country over the next four years?
Oddly enough, the best political commentary and discussion on television right now is coming from a very unlikely place: comedy shows, specifically Real Time with Bill Maher and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Maybe it’s because broadcast and cable news have confined themselves to certain formats and structures that mirror their predecessors and competitors, but these comedy shows, while not necessarily informative, provide a level of sophisticated analysis in their jokes that can’t be found among all the pundits on CNN.
Stewart’s hysterical observations or a one-liner from Maher’s guests so often contain more insight into an issue than all the news coverage combined that it’s almost worth leaning on shows like this as a primary source for informed discussion of current events. When promoting his book, Bill Clinton appeared on The Daily Show, but did not interview with news magazines like Dateline and 20/20. Maher consistently features senators, governors, congressman, authors and journalists alongside comedians, filmmakers and musicians to discuss issues of the day. Though both shows are definitely left-leaning, guests from all sides of the political spectrum are always allowed time and space to get their side of the story across. Reactions from the stars and guests have a level of candid honesty not present in artificially formal and scripted news interviews or political talk shows. The writers are equal opportunity offenders, consistently displaying that everyone is fallible and every issue is fair game, no matter what your personal or political outlook.
But the real reason these programs show so much more depth and nuance than television news when addressing even the most serious issues is because they don’t strive to draw conclusions at the expense of discussion and observation. TV news tries so hard to make everything make sense that it essentially ends up ignoring most of the facts. In an attempt to simplify complicated topics, opinions are artificially polarized to extremes, painting over shades of complexity with black and white. Comedy shows have no need to parse everyone into liberal or conservative boxes, so a much broader range of opinions can coexist than you’ll ever see on Crossfire.
It’s incredibly ironic that the freedom comedy shows have to explore issues in a way that tv news currently cannot is because their object is not to inform, but to entertain. This realization sheds a lot of light on what is really wrong with television journalism. TV news wants so badly to make it easy for Americans to decide where they stand on an issue that they limit our options. In trying to gain viewership, tv news oversimplifies everything it touches, turning even the most complicated issues into yes or no questions. It’s a genre locked up in an ideological prison of its own design.
So, what’s to be done about it? Changing the way the business works isn’t a realistic option, however appealing it might seem. Fortunately these comedy shows are extremely popular, critically acclaimed, and they’re significance is starting to be realized by more mainstream media, though I’ve seen no evidence to-date that tv news is taking any cues from the range of discussion on these shows. Maybe it’s not the most desirable course, but it seems the best we can do is seek out good journalism and give it our patronage, while keeping a critical eye open. Most importantly, try not to let the way television frames debate frame yours.
These days it’s almost cliché to talk about how terrible television news is. Talking heads, catchy sound bites, provocative b-roll and epilepsy-inducing graphics are such the norm that no one feels the need to even point it out anymore. It used to be a hot subject of debate, at least among academics and professional journalists, but in the past two decades the real journalists have been marginalized, anchor seats have been awarded to the broadcasters with the best hair, and the academics... well, who cares about them, right? Unless you read a good paper or web magazine, the only academics you hear from anymore are being talked over by Chris Matthews.
There are a few bastions of good journalism left on television, but they are few and far between. Unlike his network colleagues, Mike Wallace’s journalistic integrity hasn’t been completely enveloped by a drive to boost ratings. BBC International offers excellent international news coverage. You know, like, important shit going on around the world that doesn’t directly impact American vacation plans or the price of gas for our ginourmous vehicles. Frontline is hands-down the greatest televised journalism since the days of Edward R. Murrow. C-Span at least lets you see what’s actually going on without couching it in condescending commentary while absurdly uninformative headlines crawl across the bottom of the screen.
This debate is largely dying due to the nature of ad-supported television. The ratings are up and agencies are buying ad time. So, what’s the problem? It’s the old “we give the people what they want” argument. Why make 60 Minutes when people are watching Dateline? Why emulate the BBC if Americans would clearly rather watch Fox News Channel? Corporate ownership of media is a given, so vying for viewers over producing compelling journalism is simply the nature of the beast. Occasionally I indulge my bleeding heart tendencies and fantasize about an America with more dedication to independent public television. But I also occasionally fantasize about winning the lottery, and at least there is a very small statistical possibility of that happening.
Most networks still try to claim that their news divisions are run separately from the rest of the organization, but this claim is hardly believable anymore. Even MSNBC, which probably offers some of the best (or least deplorable) cable news coverage has been made a shill for the parent company’s entertainment division, offering entire programs about the new NBC fall lineup. Fox caters to the lowest common denominator and garners the some of the best ratings, so other networks cater to their own sales divisions by imitating Fox. Basically, the whole dial has gone to hell and it doesn’t look like it’s ever getting any better.
The dearth of decent TV journalism in America is particularly evident (as well as particularly frightening) in this monumental election year. Even if you take it for granted that TV news isn’t going to give you the whole story it is still hard to believe some of the things that receive so much airtime. The United States is involved in two different wars, the economy is tanking, most of Europe hates us, Africa and the Middle East are in even more turmoil than usual: the world is coming apart at the seams. What are we spending our time and intellectual effort discussing? Kobe Bryant, Lacey Peterson, Britney Spears... There has rarely been a more appropriate use of the term “ad nauseum.”
Even the coverage offered about pertinent issues is off-target at best. As of August, according to the television news outlets of America, the key issue in the most important US election in 50 years seems to be John Kerry’s war record. This is more than puzzling considering that Kerry did two tours in Vietnam, saw a good deal of action and was awarded several commendations while George Bush was AWOL from the Texas air national guard. Even if (and this is a huge “if”) Kerry’s war stories have been exaggerated or somehow distorted over time while George Bush dutifully did his service, doesn’t the comparison still favor Kerry in terms of who sacrificed more for their country at the time? Shouldn’t that be the end of the discussion? Moreover, shouldn’t we put all this name-calling aside and talk about their respective plans for running the country over the next four years?
Oddly enough, the best political commentary and discussion on television right now is coming from a very unlikely place: comedy shows, specifically Real Time with Bill Maher and The Daily Show with Jon Stewart. Maybe it’s because broadcast and cable news have confined themselves to certain formats and structures that mirror their predecessors and competitors, but these comedy shows, while not necessarily informative, provide a level of sophisticated analysis in their jokes that can’t be found among all the pundits on CNN.
Stewart’s hysterical observations or a one-liner from Maher’s guests so often contain more insight into an issue than all the news coverage combined that it’s almost worth leaning on shows like this as a primary source for informed discussion of current events. When promoting his book, Bill Clinton appeared on The Daily Show, but did not interview with news magazines like Dateline and 20/20. Maher consistently features senators, governors, congressman, authors and journalists alongside comedians, filmmakers and musicians to discuss issues of the day. Though both shows are definitely left-leaning, guests from all sides of the political spectrum are always allowed time and space to get their side of the story across. Reactions from the stars and guests have a level of candid honesty not present in artificially formal and scripted news interviews or political talk shows. The writers are equal opportunity offenders, consistently displaying that everyone is fallible and every issue is fair game, no matter what your personal or political outlook.
But the real reason these programs show so much more depth and nuance than television news when addressing even the most serious issues is because they don’t strive to draw conclusions at the expense of discussion and observation. TV news tries so hard to make everything make sense that it essentially ends up ignoring most of the facts. In an attempt to simplify complicated topics, opinions are artificially polarized to extremes, painting over shades of complexity with black and white. Comedy shows have no need to parse everyone into liberal or conservative boxes, so a much broader range of opinions can coexist than you’ll ever see on Crossfire.
It’s incredibly ironic that the freedom comedy shows have to explore issues in a way that tv news currently cannot is because their object is not to inform, but to entertain. This realization sheds a lot of light on what is really wrong with television journalism. TV news wants so badly to make it easy for Americans to decide where they stand on an issue that they limit our options. In trying to gain viewership, tv news oversimplifies everything it touches, turning even the most complicated issues into yes or no questions. It’s a genre locked up in an ideological prison of its own design.
So, what’s to be done about it? Changing the way the business works isn’t a realistic option, however appealing it might seem. Fortunately these comedy shows are extremely popular, critically acclaimed, and they’re significance is starting to be realized by more mainstream media, though I’ve seen no evidence to-date that tv news is taking any cues from the range of discussion on these shows. Maybe it’s not the most desirable course, but it seems the best we can do is seek out good journalism and give it our patronage, while keeping a critical eye open. Most importantly, try not to let the way television frames debate frame yours.
No comments:
Post a Comment