Whenever I sit down and try to understand how the television news anchors I remember from my childhood and youth - Walter Cronkite, John Chancellor, Chet Huntley, David Brinkley, Peter Jennings, etc. - morphed into what passes today for news people, I think I can pinpoint the exact time when the "wheels came off the wagon."
Roone Arledge became president of ABC Sports in 1968 and held that position until 1986. In 1977 he also took over ABC News and insisted that newscasts must make money. That decision, and similar ones made at the other (at that time) two networks, meant that newscasts had to have ratings that would attract advertising revenue.
Before, the newscasts had been treated as a public service by the broadcast networks because they used the public airwaves. Well, that honeymoon was over!
When advertising began to drive the news departments of TV networks, the ideas of the Madison Ave. boys became the golden rule by which decisions were made. So...fast-forward to 2008.
There are now too many, in my opinion, so-called "24-7 news channels" vying with network news for the same advertising dollars. "News" becomes whatever will attract the demographic that Madison Ave. craves. Since the boys who control advertising, of course, think that people just like them are the desired demographic, we get "news" aimed to get the attention of males 18-40.
Never mind that those same males aren't really the purchasers of the majority of goods in our "consumer society." If the boys on Madison Ave. believe they are...then they "are."
"News," thus, has to fit two criteria: 1. Can the images projected get the attention of the boys in the audience? 2. Can the political viewpoint of the "news" satisfy the conservative bent of the corporate suits who will make advertising "buy" decisions?
Please remember, audience: The content of television is only to attract you to the screen so that you will see the advertising that is the whole purpose the medium exists. There is really no need to inform you, to be objective, to follow the basic rules that reporters learn in journalism school.
But, a caveat...they don't want to p*ss you off too much either, because that would mean you wouldn't watch the ads. So, content has to be both visually exciting and mentally bland.
What do we get in a situation where TV "news" wants to get males 18-40 to watch? Well, we get female anchors who are consistently pretty (all with the same straight, face-hugging hair style) and young, who defer to the male co-anchor in all the right ways.
The guys behind the anchor desk can be pretty boys or older homely men, but the ladies have to be hot! And...on Fox they will show plenty of leg and cleavage to keep guys "on channel."
Now comes content. Television is a visual medium, so any satellite footage of a fiery car crash, a plane crash, a crime scene, etc. - it doesn't matter where or how - is sure to grab attention and be on all the channels at the same time.The news folk also love those helicopter videos of cops chasing someone down a California freeway...or mudslides with houses falling into the abyss...or a rescue using cranes, ladder trucks, maybe some other "heroic" means.
Then, newscasts will sprinkle in a few "human interest" stories, just to appeal to the "soft" side of the boys. Some wonderful person who sacrificed for another. A little child rescued from some danger. A sweet old person helped by a Good Samaritan. A cancer patient who never gives up.
How about the real issues of the day? The crappy economy getting worse each day, the endless war in Iraq, the dangerous turn in the war in Afghanistan, the lack of health care and manufacturing jobs in the U.S., the fact that the rest of the world now hates us?
Well...the economy is covered by giving the Dow Jones Industrial Average and having some Wall Street type tell the audience things will get better really soon.
The war? The New York Times told us today what we should have figured out long ago. Those "military experts" on television are Pentagon plants with ties to Dwight Eisnehower's infamous "Military-Industrial Complex."
As for the current political races going on? What's more important than dwelling on whether Barack Obama wears a flag pin, or if Hillary Clinton can really be trusted, or why - to the media - John McCain is still so lovable. (Crushes often die slowly - if at all - huh, news boys?)
I know, I know. The shallowness of the so-called "television news media" is something they really can't help. The anchors need to get paid (handsomely) for reading a teleprompter, and the mostly Republican corporate suits upstairs need to get the dough from the advertising.
We peons in the audience are supposed to watch the ads and enjoy the fluffy crap that fills the spaces in between. Okay, I get it....That's why I don't watch that garbage anymore. Thank the Lord for quality newspapers and the Internet!
I have neighbors who watch a lot of it and I always seem to know more about what's going on than they do. I recommend everyone find non-TV news sources they can trust, and listen or read critically. Think for yourself and watch TV almost never. I've been doing this for almost 10 years since an act of God (lightening) fried my TV. I think God was sending a message and I was listening. Now when I do see it I am shocked at the stupidity of the so-called pundits. The ignorance and arrogance stinks. I feel like I need a bath after watching.
My advice is "Just say no to TV.".
I prefer a mix of media: newspapers, magazines and networks that covers a broad spectrum of information (w/out all the "yelling")including: Democracy Now, Mother Jones, WSJ, The Independent (UK), McClatchy News, WaPo, NYTimes, Link TV, Daily Report and recently Colbert. Its a guess that most folks are too busy to digest in-depth analysis and network news serves it up fast (with "femme fatales" at FOX).
Disney president Bob Eiger was on C-SPAN radio last night for a talk that he gave at Syracuse's Newhouse School of Communications earlier this month. One of the questions was about Obama's opposition to further loosening of media consolidation rules. Eiger said it would be a disaster (predictably).
The big issue with the major media players is that their interests don't always converge with American interests -- national or local. It works to their benefit to limit the number of voices in the market place -- it helps them to sell products from other parts of the conglomerate, and it helps them to bolster shareholder value.
A lot of these conglomerates -- Disney -- which controls ABC/ESPN as well as some publishing outfits -- want to be players in international markets. Those international interests sometimes trump American interests, so there is an inherent tension. This is going to continue to be a big issue going forward.
You are correct, Lowell: the time frame is that of the ascendancy of the Chicago economists, the Harvard business school's emphasis on quarterly profits uber alles, "free market" capitalism, in short, the neo-con Raegan Republicanism, the terms of which Raegan and Bush imposed upon America, and which Clinton brought to the Democratic Party as well through the DLC.
That said, I do agree that virtually all political discussion on television is currently worthless and unwatchable.
But, I spend at least a part of most mornings with CNBC, and while some of their discussions are moronic, enough of it is pretty well done and intelligent and interesting to make it worth watching. Of course, people are betting hundreds of millions on their reporting, so it has to offer something.
The WSJ is another example. Leaving aside its editorial page, it sold 2 million copies a day. That DJ eventually ran into financial trouble (even tho the Journal, and in fact the company, was profitable) and got acquired was not a news content issue.
I do part ways with Teddy on one point. As a former DJ employee and long-suffering shareholder via my employee stock purchase plan, I thought it was a good deal!
And, actually, Murdoch won't have much effect on the bulk of the business news DJ produces -- that is driven by the marketplace.
Elaine is also absolutely right though about how broadcast news was not originally envisioned as a major profit center for the networks. The purpose was that it was instead supposed to be a public service. Elaine points to Arledge -- I've heard others point to the mixed blessing that is 60 Minutes (e.g. the program showed the networks that investigative journalism was very profitable -- the spin-offs and knock-offs though have merged into something else; there were also negative spill-over effects for CBS's news division).
Media consolidation too I see as problematic. Too many potential conflicts of interest for the big players -- not enough transparency.
There are some good magazines out there too such as Harpers and Vanity Fair (and political ones like The American Prospect). I also recommend checking out what the right wing media is putting out there. Sometimes they have some legitimate issues.