Actually, about the news. Just some ruminations a few days following a trip down to Iowa this last weekend. I am always brought up to & beyond speed with respect to the current state of broadcasting after spending a day or two at my parents. The TV, which is perpetually on, is usually tuned to cable news (a type of network which came about more or less, mercifully, after my upbringing in a "cable house") during the majority of the daytime hours, and those vapid, sugar-coated suburbs to the cities of programming: the morning shows (e.g. Good Morning America, the Today Show). Haven't sat and actually watched more than a minute of them for years, but I trust that if there is still a particle of cheese to be extracted from any headline happening worldwide, Katie Couric is still there to interview someone willing to dole it out, the morning after.
Again, the whole phenomenon of the cable news network has pretty much grown to the point it has generally outside the scope of my day to day experience. I am only aware of it through its influence on other areas of our society, including talking points for political discussion. And the growth of the format has seemed to parallel a couple of disturbing trends in journalism. The less disturbing of the two is sensationalism. It is only less disturbing in that the root of the problem is so obvious-quest for ratings and appeal to the least common denominator. It has, nevertheless, convinced me that the amount of cable news (or really, any news) an individual watches is in direct proportion to the amount of skew that person in judging the relative importance of issues in the world. To "Joe Woodbury," where does "shark attacks" fall within the list of the top 10 issues facing society today?
The other, far more insidious, trend is that of either lazy journalism or (worse) advocacy journalism presented as a traditional news broadcast. Indeed, we seem to be moving in a direction where many "journalists" themselves knowingly or otherwise perpetuate a stream of bias and propaganda into their broadcasts. Disappearing fast, it sadly seems, is the purity and sanctity of The 4th Estate.
skip to main |
skip to sidebar
- Dan
- Father, musician, trail runner, reader, geographer, craft beer aficionado, meditator.
On the Bookstand
In the DVD Player
The Roll
-
-
Three Day Weekend14 years ago
-
King New Year 201214 years ago
-
-
Perfect Things.17 years ago
Other Favorite Places on the Web
In This I Believe
Blog Archive
-
▼
2005
(168)
-
▼
July
(11)
- A Special 'Thank You' to The Statesman and The Val...
- As Only I Can Do It (alternately titled "What Was ...
- Hanging on a Weather Vane with My Hand Cut Off
- The Fever Breaks
- PrairyErth: The Recommendation
- Afternoon of N.S.E
- News
- RoJ Comments Part Deux
- RoJ
- Ah, The Cramps, My Old Friend. We Meet Again.
- LIke a Cross Between Louis Pasteur and Roger Banni...
-
▼
July
(11)
Posts
2 comments:
All very true.
We don't get any of the now many cable news channels. No CNN, no FoxNEWS? nor MSNBC. We get something called New England Cable News which is sposored by the cable company and is a great place to check the accurate time. To be fair, they do have some interesting political round table discussions, though it's the usual fare with one viewpoint from each side, neither excpected to tell the truth or called out when telling lies.
Anyone who gets their news from only one source, and worse, constantly from that source, is doomed. There isn't that much news, and all news is biased, at least in this country. I see and hear enough BBC to think that they may be more neutral than any news organization on earth.
As I understand, they are a respected entity there-and definitely with the power & clout to hold public figures somewhat accountable.
My personal experience has purely been their radio news-don't known much else about BBC television, though I find myself catching and enjoying an ever-increasing smorgasboard of British comedies, about 50% of which seem to star Rowan Atkinson.
Post a Comment