It is nothing new to say that our public discourse has been polluted by mud-slinging. Anyone will tell you that the media is biased. Those people are at least partially right. Whom is the media biased against? That is the real question. Of course, there are the usual suspects. Liberals and conservatives have well known allies and enemies in the media. But regardless of the agency, all discussion is brought through the same process that we have come to expect.
There are four basic steps.
First: the story is broken. At this point, very little is known. Twenty-four hours news agency rush to explain the event in the most dramatic fashion. Graphic design teams are fast at work creating sweeping graphics. Possibly they are dusting off maps of places we are about to hear a whole lot about.
Second: the story is beaten. This is the longest period. Often a team of “experts” are consulted. This is very easily recognizable because the will be a flashing graphic that says “Breaking News!”, “Just In!”, or something similar, even though the commentators have no new information. Or to put it more bluntly, they have no News.
Third: the story is explained. This is the shortest period. Often this is compressed into a single paragraph. As a viewer, this can be a very easy stage to miss.
Fourth: the story is spun. This is the most biased portion. It is squeezed into a small niche that fits neatly into a bi-partisan package. Almost without exception, the event is portrayed as another “example” of what the news agency has purported all along. Never mind that another agency is reaching the exact opposite conclusion.
Unfortunately discussion cannot be held in an environment in which both sides are necessarily dependant on the other being wrong. Of course, spinning a story is nothing new. Political cartoons have been around for quite some time. But our news agencies have changed. They only produce political cartoons.
Not literally, of course, but their message is one meant to persuade at all times. This is not the case everywhere. There are a handful of national journalists who stand out. And there are many more locally based reporters who do not feel the same pressure to continually run a party message.
This all leads to one inevitable outcome. We have very little valuable public media. With the failing of newspapers, we will soon have far less. Very little coming out of television news can be taken as truth. Anyone who is paying attention knows that. But part of the problem is that not everyone does – or can- pay attention.
That is the rub. A college student, an affluent adult, a studious parent, they can pay attention. The first time voting high school student, the hard working single parent, the undereducated, they cannot or do not pay attention to the level that is required to make an informed decision. Although it is preferable to have a situation in which they can and do pay attention, many will never have the time to learn about the intricacies of it all. And, sadly, many more who do have the time will never care to try.
The next best would be for the media to patrol its own broadcasts. But why would they? The business model that they have now is the one that has shown to pay the best. So then how can they be persuaded to provide a more valuable service?
We, any viewer, are tied into a business model that rewards catering to the most casual viewer. As a result, even the target audience gets poor quality news. But everyone else either feels disenfranchised or disillusioned. They believe that either the news has no relevance to them or they see the theatre of it.
05/19/2009 at 7:02 pm
Yeah and in the expert consulting, they cover every policy initiative as a process story. So for health care. Instead of the leading experts on health care explaining the problem, and different schools of thought on how to fix it, they have on experts about the political process. They don’t ask “what will this do to Americans?” they ask “what do Republicans say this will do to Americans? and what do Democrats say this will do to Americans?” and – most importantly – “how will that shape the public perception and effect ___ election.”
It’s easier to follow a process story so, like you said, they get more ratings.
Although I still strongly believe that if you have a smart show on a 24 hour news network it will get an audience. Nothing like Hannity’s numbers but enough to stay on the air.
06/04/2009 at 9:01 pm
[...] Well, I certainly hope not. But it’s almost cliche to call out a politician for contradicting himself or even flat out lying. People make a great living of it. I’m looking at you, Jon Stewart. I’ll tell you what – you show me a politician who contradicts himself into a position against polling data and I’ll buy you a Coke. And I think I’ve already made my point about the media being bought and sold. [...]