[quote=Allan from Fallbrook]Eaves: Stepping back one step further, might it also be fair to say that the news (including electronic and print media), as it exists now, is very different from the news in the 1960s, 1970s and even into the 1980s? Meaning, we now see more of a tabloid-style journalism, versus the more thoughtful reportage in times past. Further, true investigative journalism, in the style of Woodward and Bernstein, is largely dead. Even amongst those papers that can afford to do it, like the NYT and WashPost, it isn’t nearly as prevalent as it used to be.
I guess what I’m trying to say is that, in our era of soundbites, the 24/7 news cycle and “flash and trash” reporting (think TMZ), the facts have largely been lost. Add to this the dearth of true critical thinking and analysis from your average Joe (or Jane) and we find ourselves exactly where we are.
“If it bleeds, it leads”, has never been more true than the present.[/quote]
Absolutely, Alan. There’s no question that, by the early 1990s, print journalism was dumbing down big time for its readers. I know this will sound trite, but I’ll use People magazine as an prime example (mostly because we’re not talking about a publication that was aimed at audiences who were after in-depth explorations of events and issues). Prior to the mid-90s, the length of People’s articles were mostly 1 to 3 pages with lots of large pictures taking up space, in a primarily B/W format. Apparently that was too much for the attention span and reading capabilities of the average subscriber, because Time-Life moved the magazine to a 4-color format with little “items” instead of articles, more like that of the National Enquirer, and pretty much did away with the one or two human interest stories that were typically included prior to that. Time and Newsweek went in the same direction: not quite as extreme, but definitely in the “news as amusement/entertainment” vein.
It’s funny: I picked up a 1958 Good Housekeeping magazine in an antique store, and was blown away by the contents. It was written on a level that many current day college seniors would have difficulty comprehending. There were the usual articles on fashion, cooking, and other areas of domestic science ubiquitous to the genre, but there were also articles on household finance, investing, insurance, and on home architecture. I’m sure that readers of my mother’s generation were dismayed by the “dumbing down” that had taken place to attract readers of my generation in the late 70s to mid-80s, just as I am concerned about the same type of changes currently.
We’re upset about the way that news is being presented today because we’re old enough to remember when news was just that: NEWS. The reading of the events of the day read by a distinguished dark-haired (with a bit of gray at the temples) gentleman in low rumbling reassuring tones without a trace of emotion. There was no opinion, no disapproving grimaces or tones of outrage. And even a whiff of bias was something to be avoided at all costs. However, many of today’s viewers see news as something that is presented by an individual of well above-average looks and build, who is often part of a team of similarly-gifted people, often joined by “special guests” who are former political office holders, political operatives (former and current), retired military officers, and media reporters. We’ve somehow gotten the idea that because news is presented in an environment where people of opposing sides are brought in to “comment” (read “verbally mud wrestle”), that we’ve been privy to “unbiased” news, when, in fact, we have had a double scoop of it in two different flavors.
News is no longer the reporting of events that have occurred, but the presentation of events as the host organization would have liked for them to have occurred. I laugh when I read about how Fox News gets higher ratings than CNN or MSNBC: the ratings are for shows like Hannity and Countdown and The O’Reilly Factor and The Ed Show. This isn’t news – it’s entertainment, pure and simple. And they’re not there to inform people. They exist for people who need to have their egos stroked, their sense of self-righteousness stoked, and their opinions reinforced, and who are incapable of, or unwilling to engage in, critical thinking.
True, there are still traditional newscasts each evening on CBS, NBC, ABC, PBS, and even “headline” shows on the cable networks. However, as mentioned before, in an effort to appear “unbiased” they are engaging in bias when they underreport, or fail to report, or overplay the importance of particular events of a particular political persuasion.
One can follow this trend to its logical conclusion: whoever has the most money and can tell the most compelling story that will get the highest ratings will run our nation in the not-too-distant future. And while the winner will do that with the complete cooperation of middle class America, middle-class Americans won’t share in the prize.
