I read the news today.
Oh boy.
By Russell Bartholomee

At noon today, on all of the major cable news networks, the top stories were predominantly fluff.  MSNBC led with the ‘Runaway Bride’ (weeks after that story ended, we’re still having to hear about it and see that crazy bug-eyed lady’s photos).  On Headline News, we got an update on the search for Natalee Holloway—or rather we were told that there was nothing new to tell; thanks for that.  Fox began the news cycle with a brief mention of the Tyco verdict before itself turning to the search for Natalee.  Only CNN began with something of national interest (a piece on the President’s tour to promote his legislative agenda), and even that was a rehash of yesterday’s news.  The first network to mention anything about the war was Fox, three stories in.  There is no mention on any of the networks about Iran’s elections, the EU Summit meeting, the Downing Street Memo, the earthquakes and aftershocks in California, or any other stories of genuine national and international interest.

You may be saying, “Well that’s TV.  If you want more substance, you should look at the networks’  web sites.” I did that.  On foxnews.com, the top story was…Natalee Holloway.  Both msnbc.com and cnn.com lead with the Tyco verdict.  But immediately beneath that story are pieces on Michael Jackson and American Idol second fiddle Bo Bice on one and Natalee Holloway and Terry Schiavo on the other.  All three sites have the latest news about Tom Cruise and Katie Holmes, Oprah, and other air-filled offerings. 

If you dig long enough, you do find a few genuine news items on these pages, but anyone glancing at headlines today would be blissfully unaware that protesters were stopped by armed forces in Kyrgyzstan, that Israel is building a sea barrier in Gaza, that North Korea is considering reopening talks with the US, or that the Democratic Republic of Congo was delaying democratic elections.  Where did I find those news items?  On the web sites of BBC, The Guardian, the Times of London, and Google News (which is not assembled by a news director, but rather electronically).  On these web sites, you get actual hard news that affects the world, and you have to dig for Michael Jackson and Tom Cruise.  The Runaway Bride isn’t even mentioned.

Now, I grant you that US networks would naturally be more concerned with news that directly affects US citizens, and therefore, the EU Summit ought to take a back seat to the War in Iraq.  But having no mention of the Summit is negligent.  And I certainly feel for the parents of Natalee Holloway and wish them the safe return of their daughter.  But honestly, until there is actually something to report besides “we’re still looking,” we should be hearing about actual developments in stories that matter to the whole nation (not to mention the world).  The fascination that the TV news media seem to have with Jackson, Schiavo, and the Runaway Bride—long after the stories are over—is truly disturbing.  These are not matters of national importance.  The war is.  Our relationship with the EU is.  Political unrest in Kyrgyzstan may seem remote, but I thought we were concerned about the abuse of democratic principles abroad.  Isn’t that why we’re in the Middle East? 

The argument of news directors is that they are reporting what the viewers want to hear about.  That may be true, but the media has a responsibility that they’re completely ignoring in favor of ratings.  In my interview with Tommy Smothers last month, he made an excellent point: that for democracy to be effective, the electorate has to be informed.  By distracting us with fluff stories, televised gossip columns, and celebrity-centered pseudo events, the news networks have betrayed the fundamental purpose for their existence.  It’s almost impossible to imagine now, but I wish the fourth estate would get back to the business of informing the electorate of things that matter, and stop worrying about entertaining us.

There used to be a time when the major networks’ news divisions were run completely separate from programming.  That way, ratings and corporate concerns would never dictate news content.  When Sidney Lumet directed Network in 1975, the film’s fictional network put the news division under the umbrella of programming, erasing the integrity of the news broadcast and replacing it with sensationalistic shows about psychics, reality shows about criminals, and megalomaniacal talk show hosts shouting down their guests, presenting egotistical, half-cocked rants and jingoistic propaganda as the news.  Network seemed like an unlikely fable in 1975; it’s all the networks have to offer 30 years later.

And that’s the way it is.


Comments? Click here to let us know what you think.