Why Does Commercial News Suck?

This week, I watched the same piece of information reported on commercial TV and PBS. At 6:30, NBC's Brian Williams went into shocked-and-breathless mode to announce that American life expectancy had hit a whopping 77.9 years. Then at 7:00, I heard Jim Lehrer calmly announce the same fact and put it in context. While this is the highest life expectancy the US has yet achieved, it falls behind 40 other nations. The context changes everything. If you were watching Brian Williams, you'd be popping the champagne corks. If you were watching Jim Lehrer, you'd be contemplating moving to Costa Rica--one of several third world countries with longer life expectancies than the US.

The Brian Williams sound bite--which sounded like a press release from the Ministry of Truth in George Orwell's 1984--would be like Agence France-Presse touting the French economy's 1% growth rate. France's economy has indeed been growing steadily since World War II, but the central issue is why France's growth is so much slower than peer countries like Ireland, Sweden, and the United States. At least in France, for all its problems, they debate the real issues. Here, for lack of information and context, we don't.

Why not? There are a few theories:

1) People love fake news. No, I'm not talking about The Daily Show; I'm talking about FOX. Many Americans want to hear good news, and that's what FOX gives them. Tune in to FOX, and you'll hear, for example, that we're winning in Iraq. And as the older commercial networks try to compete with FOX, which has better ratings, many have slipped into an if-you-can't-beat-'em-join-'em strategy where they try to give people just as much fake news.

2) Self-interested corporate media. This one's a tad conspiratorial for my taste, but here's how it goes. The commercial networks are run by giant corporations which have never been more profitable. They need to keep people feeling either satisfied or powerless so nothing really changes. GE owns NBC. It pays Brian Williams's paycheck. It's also in the healthcare business. I know because I use their dental plan. So if word got out that the US had third world levels of life expectancy while spending far more than even its fellow wealthy countries on healthcare, people might dump the corporate healthcare system that GE's profiting off of (those profit margins are a big reason we pay more than everyone else). So GE's news division's job isn't to keep people informed, but to keep people happy--to "manufacture consent," as Noam Chomsky puts it.

I'm more sympathetic to theory #1 than #2, but I'd love to hear what readers think. And one caveat: pundits love to say it's either A or B--just watch The McLaughlin Group--when, in fact, it can be both. For example, are we in Iraq because of the oil or because of naïve neo-con theories about freedom or because the evangelicals think they're bringing on Armageddon and the Second Coming? I'd say all three. For Cheney, it's about oil; for Bush, it's about Jesus; and for Wolfowitz, it's about neo-conservative ideology. They don't all have to agree on the reasons, they only have to agree on a policy.

So what do you all think?

Comments

[GenericBlogger]

That's a fine article Daniel Brook but it scratches the surface. The limited space in a blog does little service to the subject. Volumes have been and will be written on the media's continuous metamorphosis spurred by technological changes.

I have another theory. It's not original by any means, it has been discussed in blogs, conversations, and it's plainly obvious on commercial TV especially the 24 hour channels.

Theory #3. Many viewers don't want news, they want infotainment and regard it as news. They don't want to compare current events to historical events and set them in perspective for better understanding. They don't want to listen to someone they have to question or suspect, they want someone to unequivocally believe and trust. They don't want to think hard, they want simple and clearly understood language, few or no details and specifics. Nothing longer than their attention span. Viewers want to relate to TV personalities as if the viewers and talking heads participate in coffee table talk, chattering, gossiping and empathizing about this and that.

IMO, that perception of viewers motivated CBS to hire Katie Couric and CBS found out the hard way that fluff can be excessive.

Networks drifted towards dumbed down versions of news and quasi-news (infotainment) programs but not all viewers followed. CBS's hiring of Katie Couric is a good example. Mika Brzezinski's attempts to keep another Paris Hilton story off the air was met with unsurmountable sophomoric opposition from her own colleagues. She won accolades from her fans but not her colleagues.

As for Brian Williams, ratings showed over a month ago he had fewer viewers than Katie Couric.

[Guitarsandmore]

It’s not just fake news people love; they want to see some lively debate and intelligent discussion. Jim Lehrer, with his robotic, emotionless, reading of the news will put you to sleep if you aren’t careful. It’s a bedtime story he tells.

Don’t you remember how much fun your first year of college was arguing about all of the new ideas foisted upon you by challenging professors?

Fox news –

Fair and balanced it’s not, but how many of us wouldn’t just love to get politician after politician into our own living rooms and rake them over the coals for an hour and give them what for?

The Patreaus (C-span) report was so much fun to watch precisely because clever Democrats took turns tearing into the good general, and the good general was intelligent and articulate enough to be a worthy and interesting opponent.

It’s drama we crave.

[stlrfan]

I watch PBS news often because it is about content not pretty. The networks have all made their news part of their entertainment divisions, I started watching PBS news when I could not stand one more who the baby daddy stories. Along with Jim Leher, Washington Week with Gwen Eiffel and the MacGlaughlin Group are also excellent.

[Seafoam]

What were the two groups that Chomsky identified as passing on establishment propaganda. The multipliers in our society of lies and propaganda. Pop Quiz *L*

[greeseyparrot]

Business and government?
I not sure if that's the answer you're looking for, but I do remember reading a real "eye opener" of his, in which he described the latter as having become merely the shadow of the former.

[Andreas]

If that's the case, he stole it from Karl Marx, like most of his theory regarding state and society goes back to Marx, Engels, Lenin and Bakunin.

Back in 1870, Marx wrote that the bourgeois government is nothing else but a committee of the currently dominant capital faction (in "Das Kapital")

[jpshotwheels]

Its sad in America when we have to get the real news, see it as it is, from John Stewart at the Comedy Network. He's superb in his approach and pulling the clips. One of my favorites is on Independent News Network, Democracy Now, I watch Amy Goodman everyday, if I can't, I TIVO it. Then of course we get one good hour from MSNBC, Keith Obermann. I also like Bill Moyer's Journal on PBS. Then of course there is Real Time with Bill Maher, and I say this with love Bill, but he needs to get his facts straight sometimes, the Iraqi's don't want us to stay there. Last but not least there is the internet, I read the Huffinton Post a few times a day and I read foreign newspapers too.

You forgot to mention who owns CNN, CBS, & ABC, they are biased too. They are always more to the right than they are to the left. They tend to start the gossipy aspect of a news clip, soundbite, of part of a statement that is made by someone. Twist the words to grab your attention, so you will stay tuned after the commercials, then find out the story isn't what the soundbite made it out to be. All week long, every newscaster had to link every Democrat to the MoveOn.org add on General Petreaus in the New York times. They wanted every Democrats opinion on this, well the Democrats didn't place the add now did they. They didn't pounce on Boehner regarding his remark, about the all of the deaths in Iraq, being a small price to pay for Iraq. If that is the case Mr. Boehner should enlist his own children and move to Bagdad out of the Green Zone. Not one of these news networks mentioned, the Kurds recently signed oil law, the main beneficiary, Mr. Hunt, being a close friend of President Bush, a Haliburton Executive, and Campaign Contributor to the Republican Party.

If they would report the important soundbites America might just wake the hell up.

[joja]

jpshotwheels --

Totally agree with you about Jon Stewart. He combines truth with comedy. There's no better formula for reaching the great unwashed.

The MSM is so fearful of Cheney & the Ministry of Propaganda, they can't recognize a money maker when they see it.

[kroses98]

Well, I rarely watch network news, nor do I watch The "News Hour," since reading about the "corruption" of Jim Lehrer. I watch only Keith Olbermann, Bill Moyers, and some Anderson Cooper, Chris Matthews (when he's on his psychotropic meds), Lou Dobbs, and rarely Wolf Blitzer. I continually read "Truthout," "Huffington Post," and "BuzzFlash" on my computer, and my daily local newspaper. I also read weekly newsmagazines, when I have the time. This is how I stay "current." I believe it is the only possible way to do so.

[okfalls]

I agree with another one of the comments. W Ya is in Irag for revenge... over breakfast one day he probably told his father... "I know you tried to get Saddam Dad... but once I am in office I will get him for you."

[BC2]

Then there is the asymetrical argument. Hyperbolic example:

coifed trophy anchor (male or female)says, "Liberals say, '2+2=4'. Conservatives say, '2+2=5'. You decide."

Then, the "centrists" out there who are unwilling to do the math (it's incredible how many there are), simply concede: "Well they're all trying to pull one over on us, so 2+2 must be 4 1/2!"

Conservatives: .5
Liberals: 0

[GenericBlogger]

What is 2+2=?

A mathematician will say 4.

A computer programmer will say 4 or 22.

A neocon will say "For $10,000 anything you want it to be."

[Indiana]

Bravo!

[deedrdo]

the only reason anything is on tv or, for that matter, radio, print or blog...is to make $$$. the "news" is presented in a way to market itself and not necessarily to give you viable information or to make for a better informed citizenry.

the people who expect to watch a news program and come away fully informed on any given topic are just one sheep in a big herd. it takes more work and than that to fully understand an issue from all points of view.

finally, like many things in our country, the news shoots for the lowest common denominator. that's why more people watch brian willams than they do jim leher.

[FloaterBall]

You rock, freespeach.

[tko]

Your op-ed is right on target but fails to mention news reporting is no longer a priority because "entertainment" news is more profitable for the corporate owners of the media than "event" news. Additionally, many news department staffs have been cut or personnel let go to reduce overhead and instead all the news is just copied from the wire networks instead of reported.)

[HeevenSteven]

"They don't all have to agree on the reasons, they only have to agree on a policy."

Exactly! It's called a conspiracy of common interests.

The corporate owners; the need for revenue and to that end needing to keep the sponsors happy; they need to keep us all consuming; The reporters and "journalists" need jobs; the politicians need to keep us afraid of the terrorists so we'll think we need them to protect us, etc, etc. It all settles into a sort of equilibrium.

The ignorant populace can still step outside the loop and figure it out, but they're all too busy shopping, mowing the lawn, helping the kids with homework, driving to soccer games, watching football on the 52 inch TV, and working to pay for it all to be bothered with reading anything deeper than the comics.

Be afraid; be very afraid, but don't forget to go shoping today.

[dryfactoidobotanoid]

I don't believe that people like to hear good news. in fact, as Marshall McLuhan observed, the news is the bad news which is there to sell the good news which are the commercials.

instead, what (very many) people like to hear is what doesn't confuse them. if it's confusing, they don't pay attention, like children. so for example with the longevity thing, the confusion is, Murika is the Greatest country in the world, so why are we dying more than Costa Ricans?

[larry278]

Could this fact have encouraged Mr Murdoch, who made a fortune in publishing tabloids, to start a business channel?

[Manx]

Your dental insurance has just been cancelled, which confirmes theory # 2.