I like to keep up on current events. I'm not obsessively political or anything, but I just like to know what's going on in the nation, and the world, around me. As I don't really have the time to read the paper, I generally count on TV news to get me my fix, to provide me with a summary, at least, of what's happening out there. And I usually count on my morning time to do this, so I pop on the set while I'm getting ready for work (the set in the bedroom. Actually, I have two sets in the bedroom, but that's another story) so I can have it on in the background.
The problem is that I actually want NEWS. And finding that is not as easy as it would seem.
First off, I'm a pretty middle of the road guy on things, and I like to get my information that way, too. So I don't like my news to come at me with an agenda. I remember my first semester of college, when I was a journalism major (a major that lasted for that semester only). I was in a mass media class, a sort of intro into the medium, and I remember being quite shocked and unprepared when I learned about the idea of "slant". Up to that point in my life, I just figured that the news was the news. I mean, it was just facts, and that was that. Well, I learned then something that many (if not most) adults still haven't learned after years of taking in TV, newspaper and magazine news. That the news ain't necessarily the facts. Behind the network or editorial staff that's giving you those "facts", there's almost always some kind of agenda. Maybe it's not even a conscious one (or at least one he/she/they are willing to admit to themselves), but it's there. News is a business, and a big one. It's not a public service or an altruistic labor of love. And if they don't make money off it, they don't stay in business. So they're going to keep that very seriously in mind when presenting world events to you.
Yes, the actual events that happened may be real and true. But the presentation of them is where the magic comes in. Have you noticed that most of the news you hear ends up being bad news? There's a reason for that. The TV network, or newspaper, or magazine, knows what sells. They know that drama, or horror, or titillation means more viewers or readers. There's an endless amount of stories out there to tell. But when they decide which ones you get to hear about, which ones do you think they're going to choose? They're not stupid. They know what turns us on. I've heard of editors literally sitting around in a panic on a given day because there are no plane wrecks or car crashes or kidnappings to cover. If they're local, they'll quickly go outside their normal area of coverage to find something horrific. Because horrific, unfortunately, pays the bills.
The problem with this exploitation paradigm is that it's not really giving us the "truth". The stories may be true, sure (though they may be packaged and played up in such a way that they don't necessarily match what really happened), but they give us an inaccurate view of the world around us. We only see the bad stuff, and therefore, we're only getting half the story. Or if we're only getting certain kinds of stories, that's creating an inaccurate reality as well. For example, if a TV news show chose to only report stories, one evening, of crimes committed by Koreans, the viewer would, at the end of the show, be left with the impression (even unconsciously) that all Koreans must be criminals. I mean, come on...look how many crimes they commit! All of the crime stories they covered could have been completely true and accurate. But showing nothing but Korean crimes, and not those committed by others, creates a skewed and inaccurate impression that the majority of crimes are perpetrated by Koreans. They wouldn't be technically lying to you. They'd just be choosing to show you part of the truth. And in most cases, that's enough to guide the thinking of the average news viewer.
Sometimes this is done for ratings reasons. But often (notice I didn't say "sometimes"?) it's done with a purposeful political agenda in mind. Like it or not, there's no such thing as unbiased news. Network heads, editorial chiefs and simple front-line reporters are all people, and people have bias. In theory, they're supposed to keep that out of the story, but that's just not going to work on an ongoing basis. Sometimes it's blatant and predetermined, sometimes it's just a consequence of human nature. This is why you can have the same story with two entirely different headlines. A governor can give a speech, and the next morning, one headline can read "Governor outlines bold plan to stop criminals", and another can read "Governor deals blow to civil rights and due process". Which one is "true?" Maybe both, maybe neither. Same speech, two takes. If you didn't actually hear that speech yourself, you're stuck with the media outlet's interpretation of it. Sadly, that's enough for the average media consumer. They're told what to think, and they think it. After all...they heard it on the news. It must be true.
I'm always trying to weed through the bias and editorializing of whatever I hear, be it in news, entertainment or advertising. I really like to get the facts and make up my own mind, not have someone else make it up for me. So when it comes to news, I've tried to find the outlet that at least comes the closest to reporting the facts, not interpreting them. In its purest form, this is pretty much impossible. But you do what you can. This is why I avoid both Fox and CNN. Fox (as most people know, except Fox viewers, who deny it) leans one way, CNN (whose bias isn't as widely purported) the other. As I said, I want the facts. I don't want something that just confirms my political beliefs and makes me feel better about them.
Fox annoys me most, I think, for their sensationalizing. I remember being in the waiting room of a doctor's office, once, where the Fox News Channel was on. The sound was down, but suddenly a graphic flashed on the screen (flew at the screen, actually) touting "News Flash!". This being the 21st century, I tensed up. Had we been attacked again? Did a train derail, spewing a toxic cloud into the air from a ruptured tanker? Had some psycho gone nuts and shot up his office, killing dozens? Uh, no. It was just an ordinary story (one I can't actually recall right now, it was so ordinary), and not even a new story, but an update on an existing (and unimportant) story. That really ticked me off. Have you guys READ the story about the boy crying wolf? If an update on the weather is a NEWS FLASH!!, then don't expect me to look up at the set when that explodes on the screen and something actually important and relevant happens. There's the sensationalism, and then there's the shameless (but fair and balanced...) political spin toward the right. I can pretty much know, going in, that anything I hear from them is going to serve an editorial agenda and try to control my thinking on the matter.
Most people don't think of CNN as biased, and that's probably the most insidious part about it. They're where America, and the world, gets their news. Their left-leaning method of reporting is more subtle, but definitely there. I remember after the declaration of "Mission Accomplished" (huh?) in the Iraq war, the stories coming out the country were about the post-"Major Military Operations" rebuilding efforts. One day, the story was about schools finally re-opening in Iraq. Other networks, like Fox, were talking about what a great day it was for the children of Iraq, how it showed the progress of reconstruction there, etc. How did CNN report the story? They went out and found the one school that Marines hadn't finished rebuilding in time to meet the deadline of the day. Their story was about the children that wouldn't get to start school, because this one school (out of how many?) still had some construction left to do. They took that one school and made that the story, a story of the failure of U.S. forces to keep their promises and get Iraqi education back on track by a set deadline. They purposely ignored the other stories going on on other networks, the ones showing kids in all the other, completed schools, sitting in class and getting their learn on. This didn't tick me off because of any political beliefs of mine, or feelings on the war. It ticked me off because I was obviously being deceived and not being given all the facts. And all for their editorial agenda.
Just the other night I was watching a few minutes of Anderson Cooper 360 while making some dinner, a show I really hadn't watched much before. The story was part of their obviously ongoing segment called "Keeping Them Honest", which makes government agencies and representatives answer for their promises. Sounded like a good idea for a segment to me. This one dealt with New Orleans, and the trailers FEMA (and my tax dollars) had provided to those made homeless by the hurricane. Seeing what this segment's theme was and all, I was expecting a story on faulty or substandard trailers, or there not being enough trailers for everyone, or some such, and that was a story I was interested in, as I was enraged, like many, at the slow response we saw from the government immediately following the disaster. The story I got, instead, was a story about people turning in their trailers, and returning them stripped, vandalized or destroyed. And the fact the FEMA wasn't doing anything to go after these people to get the money back for the damages. I almost laughed out loud. Because this was CNN. What do you think the story would have been if FEMA had actually gone after these displaced people and sent collections agencies after them? Again, same event, but the spin you would have seen then would have been how terrible FEMA was for kicking these people while they were down, trying to squeeze money out of people who had lost everything. But because they didn't do that, CNN was so desperate for FEMA-bashing that they attacked them for NOT chasing down the former trailer residents and demanding restitution from them. This is why I can't trust them. There was zero chance of FEMA being the good guy in this. No matter what they did, CNN was going to create a story to make them look like the bad guy. And dress it up as investigative reporting.
Not being able to stomach either Fox or CNN led me to settle on MSNBC, which I felt was the closest to the middle of the road I was going to find in the mornings. This started off pretty well for me. And I do still watch them. However, I've started getting more and more fed up with them, too. With them, it's not about (in general) political bias. It's very much about the marketing factor. It's about ratings. And it's about the lowest common denominator.
In other words, it's all about Paris.
Where once I had a place to go to to get a good snapshot of global and national events, I'm more and more left with a televised version of People Magazine. It seems to me this really started when they hired on Rita Cosby, easily the most annoying woman in television journalism. The frightfully husky voice, the self-obsession that insisted SHE be the real story ("*I* got this exclusive interview with..." "So-and-so agreed to sit down with ME..."), and the shameless tabloid sensibility that turned every tragedy, somehow, sexy. Maybe it started before this, but it seems to me she was the cancer that crept in. It seemed that after her arrival, things started to go downhill. And the "headlines" started to change. Do you remember the days when news used to be organized in a way to show the top, important stories (you know, world affairs, politics, things like that) first, then work its way down to the entertainment-related stories at, say, the bottom of the show? The concept of "top story" changed. Now I turn on the tube at the top of the hour, and what am I getting?
Yeah. Paris.
Before Paris Hilton went "rogue", it was already starting. It really went all bad when Anna Nicole Smith died. And when the courtroom "drama" began right after. This was all that was on. Every angle of the story, every new piece of information that was either discovered or just rumored. The same set of red carpet video shots of her were looped over and ever again as TV "journalists" talked over them. There were interviews with anyone either involved or that just had an opinion. I often sleep with the TV on, so I've got the volume turned way down, and I often don't get around to turning it back up when I'm up and around in the morning. It's interesting, watching TV without the sound. I started noticing something. Here we were, talking about the "tragic" death of someone famous (famous, pretty much, for having big boobies), and I saw one commentator after another wearing amused smiles on their faces as they spoke about it. I think the reality of this situation really hit home when I read, online, that officials were trying to speed up the investigation (and the DNA test demand) because of how fast Anna Nicole's body was decomposing. Really, up until then, I could have cared less one way or the other about this woman. But it hit me that while everyone was having such a fun time snickering about this juicy tale, her body was rotting. And MSNBC was getting their ratings.
But Paris Hilton was the greatest shame, someone too stupid to keep herself from ending up in jail for something equally stupid. Someone even more famous just for being famous. Someone I was already sick of hearing about before the world became enraptured with her pending incarceration. This was, without question, always the top story of the day, not matter what else was going on in the world. MSNBC (and they certainly weren't the only ones) flogged this thing like nobody's business. They tried to be clever and start a "prison watch countdown" for her. There was even a moment--a brief one, mind you--where I started to feel BAD for Paris Hilton, someone who was having to go off to jail and having to deal with grinning, winking anchorpersons getting their giggle on by reporting about it. That went away quickly, first as I found out that same day that she'd been released early, and then after her screaming, bawling courtroom breakdown when she got sent back. Um...you do realize we're talking about, like, 23 DAYS in jail, not 30-years-to-life, right? But MSNBC was there, for every moment of it. And just because I was too lazy to turn the channel while I was trying to get ready for work, I did my best to ignore it and wait for the real stories to come on.
I do have to give it up for Mika Brzezinkski of MSNBC, however, for her now-famed meltdown on the Paris Hilton topic, and her stand against reporting on it and pointing out how, frankly, offensive it was that NBC was making it their lead. I don't know how long this clip will stay on YouTube, but if you haven't seen it, you can watch it yourself
here. Thank GOD someone finally said it out loud. Finally, someone IN news pointed out what news has turned into, and what it has lost. My favorite example, one that just floored me, was not too many weeks ago. There was some serious breaking NASA news. This was when things were going wrong on the international space station, with the space shuttle up there docked at it. This was serious. Lives were in danger, and the space station itself could conceivably have been lost. They had just cut to their reporter on scene, and he was just a few moments into speaking about it. His voice was grave, he had a space station model ready to go, and I was waiting to hear all about it. And then they suddenly cut him off and frantically cut away to the BIGGER story--an L.A. Sheriff's Department press conference updating Paris' situation. By the time they did get to that conference though, they caught the very end of it. And whoever the anchor was at the time apologized profusely to us viewers for going to that conference late and missing most of it. After lamenting that, they eventually cut back to the bewildered reporter and let him get back to his trivial little story about the INTERNATIONAL SPACE STATION IN DANGER OF CRASHING TO EARTH IN A HUGE FREAKING FIREBALL. But, come on. Priorities, people. We needed to find out if Paris was accepting the prison food yet. It's a good thing my TV is up too high for my foot to reach, because that day, I finally almost put my foot through it.
And it's not just in the news hours that the network has lost it. MSNBC realized how much their ratings jumped with titillating "documentaries". Those have come to dominate the channel most of the day. I hate to make a comparison by using such an overused snarky comment from people in my generation, but do you remember when MTV actually showed videos? I remember when MSNBC gave me news. Now, when I want to turn on the channel to get some news in the afternoon or evening, I get one of three things: prisoners, pedophiles or murderers. Now, me? I love documentaries. I really do. So under normal circumstances, they appeal to me. Overkill, however, can do a lot to take that appeal away. For example, if you want to show a documentary about life behind bars, well, hey, that's actually really interesting. That's what a documentary should do...take you someplace you've never been, show you a world you wouldn't otherwise ever see. They started off doing a couple of these prison things. And then they realized people liked them. Ratings were good. Well, hell, if people liked them so much the first time, why not give those to people ALL the time? And boy, have they. I have no idea how many of these things there are now, but they're on ALL THE TIME. On July 4th, on a news station, I would expect to see a series of reports dealing with America, its history, etc. MSNBC this year? Marathon. All "Lockup", all day long. An ongoing series of documentaries that now pretty much serves to turn murderers, thieves and rapists into TV stars. Didn't there used to be some kind of law against that? Or was I just being naive?
And then there's "To Catch a Predator". On the surface, a great idea. I remember when the first one came out. I thought it was a great idea. An investigative show that catches sexual predators and exposes them publicly, giving out their real names and everything? Excellent! I watched the first one. Then I watched the second one that came out some time after. Suddenly there was a third. And next thing I knew? It was a series. It very quickly went from being a public service to being entertainment. It still, I'm sure, serves a good purpose, and not just getting a few of these guys off the streets. I would hope (though many "guest stars" on TCaP prove this theory wrong, geniuses that they are) that splashing this all over would make online predators scared to death to enter a chat room, much less try to meet up with a teen. So I still have to give it up for the work they're doing. However, as I said, I watched from the start. Back then, there was a sting house, they'd lure someone in (with only the voice of a teen (the actor playing a teen), they'd confront them, and then (after the first couple of shows, when they added this part due to public outcry), they'd send them out to be taken into custody by police. It's fascinating to watch how the show has progressed. I'd catch pieces of new ones along the way. Suddenly, that actress who looks under 18 wasn't just using her voice as she hid safely in another room. Suddenly, she was leading the guy in, in person. Next thing I knew, she was answering the door in a towel. And where police involvement first started with just coming up and cuffing the guy leaving the house? It moved on from "Sir, please put your hands behind your head" to "GET ON THE GROUND! GET ON THE GROUND NOW!" with guns drawn and cops rushing in in full riot gear, taser guns, police dogs, you name it. I even saw one where they had a cop disguised as a bush. Seriously. Not just hiding in a bush, but dressed up like one and hiding among the hedges, waiting to pounce out (automatic rifle at the ready) and "catch a predator". Am I feeling any sympathy at all for the captured dirtbags? No. But am I chafing a little bit at the sensationalizing of the whole affair, the turning of important investigations into high-rated, nitro-burning entertainment? I'm waiting for the "To Catch a Predator" videogame to come out for the X-Box 360.
MSNBC has stopped being a news network and startled peddling "sexy" in any form they can (as their recent supermodel reality show (shh! It's a "documentary") showed, though I haven't seen any ads for that lately so maybe it mercifully went under), from the above-mentioned to their "Caught On Tape" and "Cold Heart, Iron Hand" (or is it the other way around?) regular shows that sling every gruesome murder or rape they can at us. Why? Because we, as a nation, keep watching. And before I go too far into that thought, let me say that if that's what America wants, that's FINE. Let's have a 24/7 seedy stuff network. I just don't want it on my news channel. I...want...news. There is so much going on in the world, so many things that we, as Americans, should be learning about to properly function in this global century we're living in. And instead, I'm getting American Idol and Apprentice updates? I'm being told to care about who Anna Nicole's baby daddy is? Am I wrong to ask for a little news from a 24-hour news network?
The solution would be to change the channel, but I really don't have any channels left to go to. So if you're thinking that the whole problem here is that I'm watching TV news in the first place, you're probably right. I need to give up the convenience of in-the-background news and get back to reading it. But then I'm stuck with much the same problem. Who's giving me news without slant? Where on the internet is my best bet at getting news without an agenda? Is there such a thing? There's really not. The trick is to find the least offensive avenue and always be aware that no matter how trustworthy the source claims to be, they're really trying to interpret the events for you, and tell you what to think. As I said, I'm constantly aware of that fact (in my news and my entertainment), and I'm used to separating the wheat from the crap. I just wish sometimes I didn't have work so hard at it. I wish that there was still (again, am I being naive thinking that there ever was?) some kind of dedication in news, dedication to telling pure, unbiased stories and letting the reader/viewer/listening make up their own minds. But I guess we can't really blame them. They're just giving us what we ask for. Ratings tell the story. Revenue speaks the tale. As long as we keep salivating over any tidbit on Paris' latest antics, or caring where J-Lo's engagement ring was purchased, or giving our attention to what Alec Baldwin said on his daughter's voice mail, then they're going to keep shoveling it. All day, all night. They will give us what we want, and then they will tell us what to think about it.
That's the news, folks. Good night.
