OLEAN -- I am suffering twinges of self-perceived hypocrisy these days. Here I am sending idealistic young journalists out into the world of media, and yet daily I experience strong urges to renounce the very news profession I thoroughly enjoyed, respected and bragged about for four decades of toil.
|
JUMP TO STORY:
Taxpayers Sue Hudson Gallagher Hanchette: Mt. Views Staba: Citycide Bradberry: Menagerie Local History Book Review Theater Boxing Letters |
Some of this visceral whim, I realize upon sober reflection, comes from watching TV recently in its futile effort to portray the presidential election campaign in some sort of understandable perspective.
Instead of an Edward R. Murrow trying to explain the issues, or Walter Cronkite telling me simply what each candidate said today, I watch bloviators selling Republican or Democratic "talking points" under the guise of informed opinion -- once-respected journalists pushing a political line of thought that seems chosen by a campaign manager somewhere. The din raised by these hollering heads is nothing but confusing.
I take great relief in discovering that I am not alone. Other aging journalists are beefing about the same thing.
Carl Bernstein, who with Bob Woodward broke the Watergate scandal that drove Richard Nixon from office some 30 years ago, told an Auburn University crowd in Montgomery, Ala., last week, "I do not remember a time I felt as unhopeful about politics and journalism as I do now."
He noted the recent scandal at CBS, in which Dan Rather on "60 Minutes" used documents that turned out to be fake to accuse President George W. Bush of failing to report for ordered Air National Guard physicals and of generally shirking his duty over a lengthy period of time.
Much of the accompanying reportage and interview statements seemed to raise real questions about whether Bush in the early 1970s actually fulfilled his military obligation, but the TV coverage quickly evolved into one question -- should Rather be fired.
That is a legitimate question, but the original subject of Bush's military duty -- brought to new interest by intense Republican focus on opponent John Kerry's behavior in Vietnam years -- plunged from sight in the media. The story in the national media quickly turned to a discussion of Rather because he is a news celebrity and a big one.
So-called TV news these days, Bernstein notes correctly, actually shows a lack of interest in real news. Instead, broadcasters promulgate stories about famous people because they know viewers would rather see and hear "about celebrities than important news and prominent political figures."
The Montgomery Advertiser reported Bernstein as saying, "The most troubling aspect of television is the news shows, which have little news but instead feature people with ideological beliefs arguing about the issues. ... Most of that 24 hours is talking heads shouting at each other."
And, he continued, "the agenda of television is driving the agenda of news."
I can remember joking with fellow print reporters about 10 years ago that this disturbing trend, if not curbed, would result in a pitifully unaware public and a deterioration of national security. No joke now. That is happening.
There is still enough information for voters to make an intelligent choice in this presidential election, said Bernstein, but not on television: "It is impossible to be informed in a meaningful way without reading."
Good for you, Bernstein. Now you're singing my tune. Bernstein calls this the "triumph of idiot culture." The boob tube, even while destroying us, reigns supreme.
Part of the problem is that, in the last decade or so, a small cluster of corporations with expertise mostly in entertainment have successfully taken control of formerly professional news outlets. Their interest in the truth, as Bernstein also noted, "is largely secondary to profits."
This has even seeped down to the local level, where TV reporters seem largely incapable of exposing City Hall corruption, examining the finance of politics, or taking on controversial subjects.
This all seemed to sneak up on the public. Many academic types who study such things think we have already witnessed the demise of network news. When ABC, CBS and NBC took a pass on most of the Democratic and Republican national convention activity this summer -- ignoring some convention nights completely in favor of precious prime-time ad revenue from moronic comedies and pointless survivor shows -- they signaled their own lack of interest in public service. And they were made to pay.
An 8-year-old cable outlet, Fox News, thundered the major networks. On the last night of the GOP gathering in New York City, when Bush accepted his party's renomination, Fox averaged 7.3 million viewers, almost 1.5 million more than the nearest traditional network, NBC.
Fox is generally viewed in the media as conservative-leaning in its presentation of political news, and CBS News president Andrew Heyward used this to explain to the Chicago Tribune why his network trailed Fox by an average of 1.6 million viewers during the Republican Convention.
"The convention was a pep rally, and before the big game, you want to hear the home team announcers," he said.
Uh-huh. That sound you just heard was someone whistling past the cemetery of old news shows.
Former CNN executive David Bernkopf -- now a media consultant -- told the Trib, "People are choosing their news outlets based on what they perceive to be the politics of that news outlet."
OK, suppose we are obviously headed toward a more partisan news culture. Suppose that isn't all bad.
Suppose -- as the more studious of you readers will certainly point out to me -- the notion of objectivity in reporting only gained sway when newspaper publishers realized in the late 19th century they could squeeze more profits out of the newly literate and expanded readership if they presented all sides of a political or societal issue.
It still doesn't mean reporting these days is clear and precise and reflective of the right targets. It is anything but. The TV "news" presenters don't come with numbered shirts or colored jerseys. It may be a long time before we know who is on whose team each time we click the remote.
Outrage of the Month -- The genius educators at Winston-Salem State University in North Carolina paid disgraced former New York Times reporter Jayson Blair $3,000 to speak to budding journalists in that school's mass communications department.
Blair was forced to quit the Times last year after scores of fabrications, fantasies and samples of outright plagiarism were found in his published news copy over an eight-month period. Blair drew about 200 listeners and was apparently a bust. He apologized, according to The Charlotte Observer, "for making it harder for blacks to succeed in journalism." He said he would give $1,000 of the fee to charity.
Many Winston-Salem students were smart enough to protest his paid appearance, but Francine Madrey, chairperson of the school's faculty senate, defended bringing in speakers who are "fairly controversial."
She asked, "How else would students learn other sides?"
College students don't need to learn the "other side" of the truth. They need to learn the truth.
| Niagara Falls Reporter | www.niagarafallsreporter.com | Sept. 28 2004 |