I do not subscribe to cable television anymore. I did this to save some money, but in large part because it hurts my head too much to watch the news anymore.You think being a journalism student, I would be an easy audience to appeal to. I do not idolize any of these news figures and I can't stand watching what is really just exaggerated opinion.
That is just fine if you want to lecture your audience about opinions all day. Just change the names of your networks to something more appropriate, because describing these cable networks as places for news is inappropriate.
First of all, when I watch the news, I am not turning on the television to read. The networks just flash seemingly random things on the screen. Along with the rolling tape on the bottom, there is just too much information to comprehend.
As if this wasn't enough, much of this information are rants from the news anchors and the "experts" brought on the show to yell at me and interrupt each other. Just because your voice is louder, doesn't mean you are correct. There are only so many times I can hear how much Bill O'Reilly hates my favorite hip-hop musicians or watch Keith Olbermann stroke his own ego.
As a student pursuing print journalism, I know the second I insert one of my perceptions into a news piece, that story will not run the next day. I ask, why is it ethical for professional broadcast journalists to get away with this on a constant basis?
Maybe this is the difference between the two mediums though. I'm sure broadcast news has a bigger audience and this method of displaying information is what attracts eyeballs. What we as the audience lose are facts. Facts go out the window when someone is trying to convince us what is right or wrong. Our perception of what is right or wrong, soon becomes whoever is listened to the most must be correct.
In 2004, Jon Stewart appeared on an episode of the CNN show "Crossfire." The show claimed to have debates about issues from the left and right sides. Stewart was not amused by the show and quickly called out the anchors.
Watch below:
I am not advocating Stewart to be the anchor for every news show. I think the checks and balances that he provided need to be preformed more often, by more people. Crossfire was canceled in less than a year in part to Stewart's appearance. The topics don't need to be changed, the format and discourse of the shows need to be improved. I understand that there is time and space that needs to be filled at a lower price. But what is the price of journalistic integrity?
I think a good broadcast model is the NBC Nightly News with Brian Williams. He never yells at me, but rather presents information calmly and direct even in times of crisis.
Many television news shows are doing the public a disservice and its time to change. I am disappointed that things are relatively the same as they were when Stewart made his appearance in 2004. This isn't an issue about the right or the left. They both do it. Confusing viewers and spewing banter is unethical, because it is not an honest discourse to inform our country.
Good post. I was actually planning on using that clip this semester to discuss some of these very issues, but I guess you beat me to it.
ReplyDeleteI would disagree with you on one point: I think that cable news has devolved since 2004. CNN killed Crossfire, but the argument culture crept into the other content programs with increasing regularity. And after the ratings boom during the Katrina coverage, CNN ramped up its hostile tone, and MSNBC decided to position itself as a liberal counterweight to Fox News.
Just know that you aren't the primary demographic for many of those programs, and that should give you some hope for the future.
Good post, good identification, good context. You had a few grammar slip-ups here and there, but just take a few more minutes to edit and I think you can catch those.