What's Wrong With the TV News

MBCook writes "Technology Review has a fantastic seven page piece titled "You Don't Understand Our Audience" by former Dateline correspondent John Hockenberry. In it he discusses how NBC (and the networks at large) has missed and wasted opportunities brought by the Internet; and how they work to hard to get viewers at the expense of actual news. The story describes various events such as turning down a report on who al-Qaeda is for a reality show about firefighters, having to tie a story about a radical student group into American Dreams, and the failure to cover events like Kurt Cobain suicide (except as an Andy Rooney complaint piece)."

Comments

What's wrong with TV news?

[ravenspear]

I'll sum it up in one name.

Paris Nicole Spears

Seriously, I really don't give a fuck. If I did I would purchase tabloids. How about some substantive reporting on actual world events? Or if you still have time to fill, some factual information on the presidential candidates. Like, maybe some stories on what they actually believe and have a record of voting for, so the public will be more informed and can make better decisions. Not stories analyzing who is ahead by 3% in the latest poll in what states or who has the best chance of winning. That only breeds bandwagoning subject to the control of the media. This is of course exactly what they want though, which is why we will continue to see no stories with real factual content, and simply sound bites.

The internet is much better as a news vehicle because I can actually find stories with real content which complexly explore the issues. Apparently the news networks think that no one's attention span is greater than 1 minute and 30 seconds, so they mandate that no stories should be covered in depth. Occasionally there are multi-hour specials on certain things, but apart from that, there is rarely regular substantive coverage of important goings on.

Re:What's wrong with TV news?

[Alexx K]

What do you expect? TV is designed for the lowest common denominator. Why? It's simple. Most people don't watch TV to be educated. They watch to be entertained. Having an active mind while staring at the TV screen is an alien concept to many.

Case in point: The decline in educational content on channels such as Discovery and TLC.

Re:What's wrong with TV news?

[Anonymous Coward]

When people say things like that what they really mean is "most aligned with my own idealogical slant".

The trouble with TV (why print rules)

[427_ci_505]

You can read more in one hour, than a newscaster can speak in one hour intelligibly.

So news is all soundbites.

Call Jon Stewart

[Zeinfeld]

More people under 30 get their news from Jon Stewart than any other source. Worse though is the fact that Stewart's fake news is better than the real news.

People should call into Stewart to suggest that he come back on the air and does a straight news show until the writers return.

Re:Call Jon Stewart

[WaltBusterkeys]

No, what's really ironic is that an article summary complaining about the lack of "serious" and "important" news on TV uses the example of a rock star killing himself as "important" news. If the point is that Britney/Paris/Nicole aren't "real" news compared to actual events in Iraq/Afghanistan/RonPaul then why is Kurt Cobain somehow so important to deserve mention in the headline? It seems like the problem is one of music taste, not importance. If the news spent entire segments on rock stars (instead of pop stars) at the expense of Iraq/Afghanistan/RonPaul news I think the author would think that's just as bad.

Otherwise, interesting article.

Re:Call Jon Stewart

[LithiumX]

I disagree. While I couldn't care less about the day-to-day mistakes of a sheltered flamed-out (and immensely successful) pop singer, I think it would be real news if she died, especially if by self-inflicted means. If someone important to culture (high or low) dies, it's always of general interest. Cobain was derided by most as just being one more rock star, and the constant MTV coverage of every hangnail and stubbed toe of his was little better than tabloid material... but his death was actually of some importance. It seems you have to die, preferably in a tragic manner, to achieve lasting fame. That doesn't mean it's a critical news story to be hashed over endlessly, but something on that level would warrant more than a "passing" mention.

The difference is that, now, network news is little different from MTV. Stephen King put it very well in one of his recent articles (http://cnn.com/2007/SHOWBIZ/12/28/yir.2007/index.html?iref=newssearch/). Instead of a sober statement regarding someone's death, followed by controlled commentary, editorial, and discussion of their impact, it now degenerates into a media circus like something that belongs in a pop magazine - it goes on endlessly, long after any intelligent person ceases to care. Even Anna Nichole Smith, someone who was about as important as Tiny Tim (blessings be upon his Holy Yukelale) and Charro, is STILL a major factor in the news. My only consolation is that the "golden age" of culture is an illusion brought on by the fact that we tend to forget that Murrow, Cronkite, and others were usually sidelined by pure garbage - we just don't remember the garbage for long. And the Golden Age of radio, for all of it's moments, was primarily filled with works of fiction that make modern sitcoms look like Masterpiece Theater. The first half of the 20th century seems to be filled with literary masterpieces, but most of the actual books printed at that time were even worse than what we have today. Conversely, there are many works being printed today that will certainly get more respect from future generations than they can hope for today.

I have a theory. Most people, meaning the vast majority who have no significant neural defects, only believe they can't handle culture. People are conditioned, not by government but by their peers, to believe that science, history, technology, and literature are beyond them. In school, I constantly saw ghetto kids slowly gain an understanding of computers (under my tutelage), then desperately hid it from their peers (to whom any form of academic achievement by one of their own had racial overtones). Later I saw that most people seem to feel that anything beyond them was simply beyond them, not understanding that no one learns "geek" subjects without effort. Some people have a stronger sense of wonder, a more powerful curiosity, that drives them to learn and grow more than others, but I really don't believe there is much that is beyond the average person, if they only paid enough attention to develop an interest in higher culture. People like to be comfortable. They like to have limits, no matter what they say. Regrettably, most people will accept imaginary limits of their own making rather than risk the crushing reality of the real thing, a choice that cripples them worse than any failed undertaking ever could.

That's why the media is the way it is. That's why the lowest common denominator is so low. That's why the masses prefer prolefeed to actual information. They have conditioned themselves to do so, and continue to do so until it (whatever "it" happens to be at the time) becomes sufficiently widespread as to be socially acceptable to their self-imposed caste.

On a final note, I don't care what anyone says about Spears in her post-career phase, I would still tap that ass, no question.

Re:Call Jon Stewart

[daemonenwind]

Well, since you asked, this John Hockenberry seems to have two main complaints:
1. He doesn't consider mainstream news relevant to his life. (Kurt Cobain, etc)
2. He doesn't think the mainstream news will report anything that doesn't grab at gut-level emotions.

Well, he's probably right about both. But his complaints seem to come from the fact that, rather than understanding what the show is and not taking a job there, he tried to make it into something it isn't. The guy should have stayed with NPR if he didn't want to write news copy for the express purpose of selling ads - that's the glory of Welfare Radio. No meaningful bottom line.

Mostly because anything on the TV, Jon Stewart included, is designed to put you into enough of a trance to mindlessly watch advertising. It feeds the bottom line that keeps everyone employed and the bosses in stock options.

Jon Stewart isn't any better or worse than Dateline.
Dateline is a newsy show designed to appeal to emotion, not logic.
The Daily Show with Jon Stewart is a newsy show designed to appeal to a liberally-oriented laugh track, not logic.

If you get your news from either source, you have no idea what's going on. The audiences are equivalent.
The sad part is that so many of you with-whiners don't realize that the same blame you're pointing onto others applies to you as well.

We already know this

[Oddster]

We are once again experiencing the century-old practice of Yellow Journalism. In fact, I would say that media's role in how the Spanish-American War was sold to the public is disturbingly parallel to that of the invasion of Iraq, just with Karl Rove at the helm instead of William Randolph Hearst. What we think is this new medium of "infotainment" is simply an update of sensationalism.

Unfortunately, history and civics education in the US are so atrocious that I would not expect many Americans to remember any of this, making us doomed to repeat mistakes from a hundred years ago.

You forgot the dupes ...

[oneiros27]

Slashdot has nothing on dupes compared to the headline news ...

Well, so long as it involved interns and politicians. I can't remember how many times the news seemed preoccupied with Chandra Levy, Monica Lewinsky, or whatever mostly unimportant event that got covered each day with slightly new 'breaking' information. If you want that, you have to go to Digg to see what each 'breaking' website has on the latest Apple rumors.

At least Slashdot doesn't do the completely useless teasers ... 'Will we get snow tomorrow?' I'm guessing you could've told me in the time you toyed with telling us before every commercial break, making us think it's going to be on right after the commercials, but saving it for the LAST thing. I'm surprised they haven't tried 'Are tornados coming and should you run for your life? Find out next!'. Nope, we can go straight to the article, discover the article summary was completely inaccurate and/or misleading, without having to sit around for 45 minutes.

It's crap like this why I don't watch the TV news anymore. I do listen to news on the radio, and they do the same thing, but I get traffic reports every 10 minutes, which is important in the Washington, DC area -- I just don't listen to it for 2 hrs straight, or I know I'll hear the same stories repeated.

A non American view of the US News

[Anonymous Coward]

As a Brit who has traveled extensively in the USA (visited 48 of 50 states) since 1975 and worked for an American Company for 20+ years I have seen US TV News really dumb down over the years.
Lets take this example.
At the time of the first Gulf War, many National Guard Units were being called up. I was on Holiday in New Orleans and the TV News had around 50 minutes (including ad breaks) devoted to the departure of National Guard units to bases where they were replacing the troops who were on their way to the Gulf. Note the coverage was all about the NG units not the regular forces leaving to fight. Lots of weeping relatives and yellow ribbons were shown.
At the end of the News, there was a 15 second piece about the Resignation of Maggie Thatcher ( British PM). Given the Britain was sending many thousands of soldiers/sailors & airmen to the gulf to fight alongside the US forces, I felt almost insulted by the coverage given.

The coverage of the Current US Election(Iowa etc) is quite widespread on UK Broadcast Media (TV & Radio). We are aware of the implications that a change in the occupant of the White House can have on Global stability etc. I wonder how many US citizens are equally aware given the predominance of coverage of 'Celebrity' has on US TV. I was in the US a couple of months ago and was amazed at the amount of time given to what I call Celebrity PAP rather then serious news items. This is IMHO dumbing down.

Personally, I don't give a about the antics/sex/drug/etc habits of so called Celebrities. But I'm at the age where I can be a member of the 'Grumpy Old Men' club (Excellent BBC TV Series).

You hit a pet peeve of mine there

[Moraelin]

In school, I constantly saw ghetto kids slowly gain an understanding of computers (under my tutelage), then desperately hid it from their peers (to whom any form of academic achievement by one of their own had racial overtones).

You've hit a pet peeve of mine there, and I don't know if it's even racial.

The thing is, it's not only ghetto kids. A lot of white adults too seem to have jumped on some sort of a "computers are too complicated, I don't have time for that nerdy crap" bandwagon. Even as more and more jobs require at least elementary computer skills, it's become more and more unfashionable to admit having even those minimal skills.

And it's not just believing that they can't handle it, and giving up without even trying. A lot do try, see that they can, then try even harder to hide that from their peers. I've seen people who _can_ handle a computer when they're alone, turn into helpless illiterates when there's a witness there.

We scared off the normal people, if you will. It's become a thing of pride to be as far from nerdy as possible.

In fact, in some circles it's become fashionable to be stupid. Cue a downward spiral as each member tries to not end up in the upper 50% of their group.

It's kinda funny. Human culture for _millenia_ respected intelligence. If you look as far back as the ancient Egyptians, a little known fact is that they actually had a phonetic set, but it was seen as a thing of _pride_ to be smart and educated enough to use the hieroglyphs. A relatively common form of flattery was to address a letter "to your scribe", meaning, basically, "I know that you can read it yourself and are your own scribe." The Greeks and Romans took pride in being able to read, write and master such subjects as administration, law, rhetoric and philosophy. (Which back then was _the_ science.) Etc.

Even the middle ages, weren't that dark a time in that aspect. There still were plenty of people trying to do alchemy, astrology and philosophy, which back the was what science _was_. Sure, it looks like ignorant and pointless compared to the modern scientific method and the later figures of the Renaissance, but nevertheless, those people were trying to figure out how the world works. Or there were advances in technology that we don't even learn about these days. The physics of the great gothic cathedrals and their mess of buttresses, are nothing short of amazing when you consider that they didn't even have a proper notation for that. Sure, it's trivial nowadays to calculate the vectors and see why it works, but that someone came up with that back then, it's amazing.

And again, noone considered it shameful to be seen in the company of an astrologer or alchemist. It was a thing of pride, in fact, and even kings and bishops made sure to have one around.

If you look as late as the 19'th century and early 20'th, the explosion of science was partially because people actually took advantage of the increasing opportunities to get an education. We have a whole category of "absent minded scientists", which were really nerdier than most people on Slashdot nowadays, and noone thought it was a social disgrace to be seen with one.

So where did we go wrong? How did it become fashionable to be the most stupid of one's peers?

How many potentially brilliant minds are we losing to that fashion? E.g., the ghetto kids you mention, some of them could become great scientists, and one or two might even discover the next great thing. But they don't, because their peers would mock any kind of academic interest or achievement.

How much is this costing us, as a society? And how long until it bites us all in the arse?