“And that’s the way it is.”
When he signed off the nightly news with those words, we all went to bed believing that was true; good or bad, we had the feeling that he had given us the headlines in a balanced way.
Now one has to weigh carefully what is said. Has it been fully researched? Are all points of view presented without bias? Is there an agenda behind the histrionics? How much relevance does the news have beyond voyeurism? Does the reporter/anchor-person pay more attention to whether we’re getting the facts or being more entertaining than a competitive source? And most disturbing of all, does the public really care that all those questions are frequently answered the wrong way.
I first began to have serious doubts about television newscasts years ago when the nightly news aired a segment about a brand of pickup truck that exploded, apparently spontaneously. The film clip showed the truck innocently sitting in the middle of the field and, suddenly it blew up. Seemed a little odd to me that they just happened to be there with their camera crew, but the anchor reported it as an actual fact. The manufacturer astutely saw smoke coming from under the frame before the explosion and suggested that was the fuse burning toward the dynamite the network had placed in the chassis. Mr. Anchor subsequently reported that was, indeed, the case, but no one had told him about it, so he thought it was a real event. Decades later he trotted out the same excuse over the bogus letter of then-candidate Bush’s military service. Maybe he was innocent on all counts, but the network certainly wasn’t.
This last week we have been treated to an even more disturbing event: The Shirley Sherrod Caper. The facts are well known: Based on a misleadingly edited talk posted on the Internet by Andrew Breitbart, a low level Department of Agriculture employee was summarily fired. Once someone checked the actual facts, it took a pleasingly short time for everyone who had rushed to judgment (and there were many) to scamper to the nearest restroom and remove the egg from their collective faces. The only person who came out with enhanced dignity was the “culprit” herself, Ms Sherrod. Then, to compound matters, it was somehow the President’s fault. Go figure.
Thomas Jefferson, author of many famous statements, once said he would rather live in a country without a government than one without a newspaper. He might take a different view of that now with instant news since selling wares seems to be the modus vivendi. If truth is served, so much the better, but that doesn’t seem to influence their quest for ad revenue, popularity, and survival.
Out of habit and hoping that Walter Cronkite will descend from the studio lights, I still watch the evening news on a broadcast network. Aside from the anchorperson preening and every reporter starting their commentary with, “Well, (insert name of your favorite anchor) . . .” the most arresting thing about evening news is that you will find out more than you ever wanted to know about the health of the viewers. Nearly all commercials are about women constructed out of brass tubing who can’t control their bladders, excessive flatulence, arthritis in joints of which most are unaware they possess, pills that will instantly turn one into an amazingly sexy person, teach you to dance and improve your bedroom performance so dramatically that you may have to go to the emergency room to be rescued from your passion.
That’s where the money comes from for the newscasts . . . Big Pharma, as it has become known. Science Daily reports the cost of advertising is almost twice the amount pharmaceutical companies spend on research and development. Because of the current climate of reporting, there may be an increasing market for the anti-gas preparations.
So how do we really get the news we need? The answer is “very carefully.” One might even change the word to “skeptically.” At least we can amend Will Rogers’ comment about all he knew was what he read in the newspapers. Life must have been simpler then. I wonder what he would have to say about television, the Internet, bloggers, and journalists who are more interested in notoriety than truth.
By Hayden Hollingsworth [email protected]
