News or Gossip?
I foolishly turn on the television to see the news. I watch FOX most of the time, but not exclusively. Most of what is trotted out as news is the same whether you are watching FOX, MSNBC, or CNN. We choose the package it comes in, but it is the same stuff. All of the reporters are at the same place listening to the same guy delivering the same canned uninformative statement. After that, they all rehash what they just showed you, in case you are a moron, in which case a rehash would be pointless.
I think I understand why the news is the way it is, but I will gripe a little anyway. My main complaint today is the news content. Personally, I am tired of hearing about Scott Peterson and Kobe Bryant. Are these news stories? Yes. Should they be reported? Yes. BUT, should these stories be the number 2 and 3 story every day even when nothing new has happened? No. Yet, it happens anyway. Somehow, a different fat lawyer or pundit saying what the fat guy said yesterday equates to "different" on the cable news channels.
In their own defense, the cable networks say that they have more time to fill, therefore, they have plenty of room for gossip stories. Furthermore, they believe people only watch about 15 minutes of their channel at a time, so the stories are repeated frequently in case someone just tuned in.
OK OK, whatever. I know advertisers pay money to get their product in front of the most people. The shows with the highest ratings make the most money. So, people must like what they see, right? Lord, I hope not. I watch, but the same stuff is on all the news channels. I may help ratings, but that does not mean I like what I watch.
I suppose there are some alternatives. C-Span for example goes into more depth than the major news channels. Am I nuts or should news outlets in an election year examine issues in depth? I suppose I just posed two questions, but try to focus on the second one.
Here is what I would suggest. Do some educating on the issue first. Let's take healthcare for example. Stories could be aired about the problem of healthcare. Update the viewers on the main concerns. Quality of care, accessibility, cost, etc. Put the problem into context. How do other countries do healthcare? What do healthcare workers say? What do consumers say? What do experts suggest. I want to know what healthcare experts are thinking. Throw in a few statistics and some human interest and we are ready to see what the politicians are saying, but now better informed and better able to spot the BS.
Let the politicians speak - preferably in a debate on the issues. Make sure the rules of the debate do not protect them from spontaneity. All of the rehearsed crap is a waste of time. After the debate, I would like to see what a panel of healthcare experts thought about what the candidates said. This process would make the task of voting less a crap shoot or ideological confirmation and more about choosing the candidate who best represents your views.
Get rid of the political spokesmen who twist their words like pretzels, who always disagree with the other side to the point of ridiculum. (I hereby proclaim "ridiculum" a word.) Let's make the process more academic and factual. I for one have grown weary of the emotion. We should elect our leaders more with our head than with our fickle emotions.
Well, that's my blueprint for news reform. I really don't need to hear about Michael Jackson on a daily business. Britney Spears is from Louisiana, but she is a far better dancer than she is a political analyst and singer for that matter. Scott Peterson is going to get off, just tell us when it happens. Kobe will get off too. In the meantime, lets learn something useful.
I believe a more informed content as I have suggested would still capture good ratings. There I go being naive and idealistic again.
What do you think?
Until the next time
John Strain