Money, Money, Money, Money

From time to time I have a tendency to look at all forms of television as I would like it to be, and not as it is. I do retain a penchant for "more and more complete news," but it appears that "news" is now, and has in fact always been, a commodity to be sold and not necessarily to be proud of.

NBC, ABC, CBS, Fox, CNN, CNBC, MSNBC, etc all yield to their highest calling which is making money, and certainly not serving in the "public, interest, convenience and necessity," which is required of over the air broadcasters. Cable Networks have no such caveat pertaining to their programming content. They need not even "pretend."

Please take a moment in order to take a short pop quiz.

What do the following have in common?

They are: Seinfeld, Paris Hilton, Law and Order, Larry King, Lindsey Lohan, hurricanes, Ann Coulter, MASH, Keith Olbermann, Don Imus, Dancing With The Stars, and Katie Couric?

They ALL are subjects to be used by Television, in order to get ratings to sell to advertisers to make money for General Electric, Walt Disney, Viacom, News Corp, and Time Warner, among others.

Ratings, Money, Power, NOTHING more.

Do these people tell you that? Of course they don't.

Does Brian Williams tell you that the NBC News is presented to have as many people watch it as possible in order to get as many people as possible to buy the products that their commercials are designed to sell?

OF COURSE NOT!

Ann Coulter appears in the media on behalf of, (drum roll please,) Ann Coulter, as well as the pious people who use her in their telecasts.

She is booked on these shows for COMMERCIAL reasons, so why be critical of her when she behaves the same way all the time and says things that are outrageous and predictable? If and when she does that, HOLD THE NETWORKS OR STATIONS WHO BOOK HER RESPONSIBLE.

Although it is a very cheap shot, where are the outraged Reverends, Sharpton and Jackson railing about her racism which is far more mean spirited then Don Imus?

In the classic 40's movie Casablanca, Humphrey Bogart playing Rick who runs a gambling Casino has this conversation with Claude Raines, playing Police Captain Renault, a regular gambler at the Casino:

Rick: How can you close me up? On what grounds?

Captain Renault: I'm shocked, shocked to find that gambling is going on in here!
(A croupier hands Renault a pile of money)

Croupier: Your winnings, sir.
Captain Renault: Oh, thank you very much. Everybody out at once!

Ann Coulter does Ann Coulter all the time. Who can possibly pretend be surprised by that? "Feigned" outrage similar to Captain Renaults is only "feigned."

Sanctimonious media people, who often believe (or pretend with on another) that they are doing "gods work," pay lip service to presenting "quality, informative content" when they are in fact just like most others interested, as the song "Money, Money" performed in the Broadway musical Cabaret indicates.

Money makes the world go around,
the world go around, the world go around,
Money makes the world go around,
it makes the world go round.

A mark, a yen, a buck or a pound,
a buck or a pound, a buck or a pound,
Is all that makes the world go around,
that clinking clanking sound,
Can make the world go round.

Norman Horowitz
I continue to expect more from broadcasters and cable networks. How foolish of me.

Comments

[SisterAnn]

I am with you, Norman.

Had we had both sides of the war equally and seriously considered our soldiers would not be in Iraq now.

Until we get get an intelligent and honest news media, the world will continue to be tricked and we will live in chaos.

[magen]

I've travelled to third world countries where the news is about 10,000 times more "fair and balanced" than it is here.

Actual facts and various viewpoints on the news. What a novel concept.

[Mrrar]

Well that was certainly rambly.

[mjjcpa]

You forgot the fact that most Americans have a short attention span, combined with an inadequate understanding of history, geography and world affairs. Most tune in for weather and sports scores. Where do think the term "a face for radio came from?"

[jeskiley]

It's not foolish of you to expect more, it's foolish for you not to clarify exactly what you want for all to hear. I'd bet with all solemnity that what you would ask for is more representative and worth more money than any tidbits gathered through $5.00 a household polling. I filled one out, I know. It was half-hearted, what do we watch during a week, they forgot to send me the one asking what I'd pay huge money to watch. I'd fill that one out for free. So, please, tell us what your perfect television world would look like. If networks aren't listening, at least I can refine my own tastes and expectations.

[Snakeback]

You could have said exactly the same thing about the war and the cast of characters who produce that show for the purpose of making money for the companies that provide the products and services of war.

Who was it that said "Washington and Hollywood share the same DNA" ? It's all about distracting the public, and taking their money for your products and services.

[ihavenobias]

There used to be a firewall between the news and sales departments at the various tv/radio networks.

In those days you could run a story that might reflect poorly on a corporate sponsor and if that sponsor questioned it, the sales department could say "sorry, but we're separate from the news department, by law".

However once those laws/standards/regulations were loosened (again, initially by Reagan and then Clinton), the floodgates opened.

CBS was the first major network to bring it's news department under the umbrella of it's entertainment division, now accountable to the sales department. This gave rise to what many of us today refer to as 'infotainment'.

A perfect example of this is the morning 'news' shows where you're likely to have far more segments on fluff celebrity news and pseudo-commercials on "hot new gadgets" than you are segments on REAL news (relevant domestic and foreign policy issues).

I don't WANT a stenographer that just repeats what he/she is told.

For example, a "story" that says (basically) "The president says Iran is a huge threat and pursuing nuclear weapons...but the democrats disagree" is NOT a story.

People read that, and if they already supported the president they think "yeah, Go Bush! Let's go after Iran!"

People who already supported the democrats read the same thing and think "Yeah, Go democrats! Let's NOT go after Iran!"

*Actual* reporting looks into who is telling the truth *and (sometimes) making a judgment based on those facts* rather than just repeating the talking points of EITHER side as fact OR repeating the talking points of BOTH sides as if that's "fair" and asking the viewer/reader to "make up their own mind".

Huh? What? How can I "make up my own mind" when all you did was state the *opinion* of some democrats vs. some republicans?

PS---There is also that fake "fact checking" that goes on where they don't provide any real context for the viewer/reader and they *pretend* like they totally debunked something.

This is a PERFECT example(short video clip):

youtube.com/watch?v=vwU90B3d6e4

[mydogshakespeare]

Of course, it works the same in politics and political campaigning, too. Winners serve the interests of their campaign paymasters while pretending to do "the People's Business".

[avergejoe]

"I continue to expect more from broadcasters and cable networks. How foolish of me."

Both you and me, Norm.
(you forgot pbs)