Remarkably, the broadcast offered not a single international story. Afghanistan, Iraq, Pakistan, China, the world economy—all took a back seat to Oprah, Twilight, Tim Russert, Santa, and Zoo TV. The broadcast seemed almost a Saturday Night Live parody. Sadly, this is what the network news in America has become: parochial, sentimental, self-absorbed. We deserve better.
- 1
- 2
On the upside, less and less people are watching.
#1 Posted by MB, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 12:04 PM
It's refreshing to agree with Michael Massing for a change. I'd extend his casual critique to the two venerable 'news' magazines, which cover politics as if it were another lifestyle feature, with 'what's hot' and 'what's not' types of analysis. Similarly, The New York Times is as fluffy as it has ever been, with the same framing of political issues and figures as being either fashionably cool or impossibly behind the times.
For what is driving this, I think that you have to look at the demographic shifts in the consumption of 'news'. Without doing a research paper, I'd guess that the recent changes in the anchor chairs at the network evening news outfits are not unrelated to this factor.
#2 Posted by Mark Richard, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 02:33 PM
I am guessing the following questions also went unasked in the Kia story: "How much are the workers earning per hour?" and "What incentives (if any) did Georgia give the company to get it ti locate in the state?
I have given up my evening national TV news habit (and most other TV as well) and will wait for the reinvention of U.S. TV news in the form of a co-anchored, hour-long, primetime broadcast, similar to what the CBC does with "The National."
#3 Posted by badgerguy, CJR on Wed 25 Nov 2009 at 10:54 PM
It's 'my' (station's) network, so I won't defend Brian's story selection.
But yep, it's demographics, and ratings, and focus groups, no doubt. But when I tune in to Nightly, nightly, I do see health care reform, and Afghanistan, along with the state dinner party-crashers and the heartwarming pieces.
We get nearly tears of gratitude when we at a local level do a story that gives you hope for the future, after all the crime and crashes and controversies. You no doubt would say fine with the spoonful of sugar, as long as there's medicine, too.
Hard to argue.
-Barney Lerten
-Assignment Mgr/Digital Content Director
NewsChannel 21/kTVZ.COM
Bend, Oregon
#4 Posted by Barney Lerten, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 11:38 AM
A rare but accurate summation of the pitiful state of mainstream media. Those of us who go in search of more meaningful material, turn to more serious channels, such as Foreign Affairs magazine; but many alternative channels are delivered via our browsers.
At this point, we have to introduce our own filters, sifting through content delivered from around the globe, sorting out content that is based on a blogger's personal opinion or bias, from the more valuable content delivered by experienced, professional journalists.
It would seem that the increase in our opportunities to communicate, is directly proportional to the decrease in our immediate, easy access to objectively reported news that actually matters.
And I still don't fully understand why news anchors get the big bucks...
#5 Posted by Michael Fox, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 12:00 PM
This story is sad but true. You don't have to be a
media professor to see that the Nightly News audience is aging and shrinking.
All of the ads are for prescription drugs. Clearly the producers don't
know how to draw younger viewers off the Internet. I for one miss The insight
of Tim russert and am now forced to watch Chuck Todd who looks
at times to be over his head
#6 Posted by Rich Price, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 12:43 PM
As a former local TV News Director from the 1970s, I deplore the state of affairs of ABC, NBC and CBS news. Thirty-plus years ago, the producers came from a rich history of journalism, and they worked to remain true to those tenets. Today's producers come from an age of insidious relativism and PC insanity. They know no better, and are immune to learning better. We always tried to connect the dots; today, the dots are scattered, and the most important are often left out of the story. The questions which were important "back then" are apparently irrelevant today, largely, I suspect because they don't fit in the current fad of selective inquiry. How sad.
#7 Posted by Doug Matthews, CJR on Fri 27 Nov 2009 at 01:30 PM
I've come to realize that many individuals in American get the big bucks not because they deserve them but because their complicity (and/ or lack of intelligence to understand the larger picture) fits within a certain propaganda model whose main purpose is to generate revenue from as many streams as possible, even if that means deflecting attention from real awareness.
Real talent, insight, intelligence, integrity, hard work do not rely on fear and insecurities for remuneration; they are employed for their own sake with the hope that a living can be made from them.
Sadly, it appears that in America it is becoming more and more difficult to make a decent living from these genuine pursuits. Doctors, teachers, pharmacists, journalists, lawyers (well, who knows about lawyers), nurses, etc. are forced to work within the constraints of certain economic models for employment.
There are a few individuals who understand what's going on, and they do their best to circumvent the insanity, but that's a 24-hour-a-day job where one always must be contemplating contingencies.
Things are looking more and more like propaganda of the old Soviet model but with an American twist. It certainly is interesting to see these elements unfold but disheartening to actually live with them.
Welcome to the Brave New World.
#8 Posted by Ed Santoro, CJR on Sat 28 Nov 2009 at 11:38 AM
I'm thankful that my parents never got in the habit of watching TV for news. Instead, they taught me to read. Now that I'm in journalism school, I'm even more thankful for the habits I adopted from my parents.
Also, was I the only one laughing by the penultimate graf? The way Massing wrote about those ads is priceless; it really tells us how absurd the evening news and accompanying ads are. Well done.
#9 Posted by Christian, CJR on Mon 30 Nov 2009 at 12:31 PM
What bugs me is that it is impossible to watch any newscast at 6:30 Saturday because all three networks are force feeding us with football.
#10 Posted by Stephen G. Esrati, CJR on Mon 30 Nov 2009 at 04:58 PM
On the plus side, after way too many years I have come to the realization that I can kill my TV and not miss a thing. Everything I need for either information or entertainment--even, for heaven's sake, infotainment--is available on line. That sixty bucks a month I was spending on cable can go to a much better cause, something braincleansing, I'm hoping. My electric bill and carbon footprint will both shrink as well. Caloo! Callay!
#11 Posted by Bobby the Lip, CJR on Mon 30 Nov 2009 at 07:12 PM
Although the example at hand is especially egregious, all of those crying foul at "corporate" media re missing the real root of the problem. Simply, "corporate" media responds to market pressure, but who creates those market pressures? us, the American people. the real reason why American media is worse than media in other western countries when it comes to the depth and quality of news is simply because *most* Americans don't care for "deep" news, and certainly not for international news. Take the BBC. sure, its a government broadcaster, but even it has to respond to what "the people" of Britain want, and they are more interested in international news than the average American. The first step to improving American TV news is to raise the lowest cultural denominator of the American populace.
#12 Posted by Abraham M., CJR on Tue 1 Dec 2009 at 06:29 PM