Journalism? What Journalism?

Politics --
continuing the conversation while changing irrigation sprinklers. Help is always welcome with that job.

My frustration with television's news entertainment media has led to my doing some deep thinking about what I think is wrong. My first thought is that it's not really news-- most of it anyway. It's geared to entertain, fast moving, lots of pictures, excitement, controversy, and no segment lasts long. That is evidently what we want as a people proven by ratings.

The second issue, I think, is that programs on cable, despite the title many of them have, are not newspaper style formats. They are magazines. They have an agenda and offer interviews and news clips to get that agenda across. This is true whether it's Fox news or MSNBC. I am not saying there are not news programs out there, but a lot of what we watch is not and it's what is leading a lot of people to think they are getting the news when they are really getting someone's agenda.

Whether you watch Keith Olbermann and Rachel Maddow or Bill O'Reilly and Sean Hannity, basically it's the same thing. They are aimed at a viewpoint and exploring, if you are lucky, some issues from several different political thinkers. If you are not lucky, you get people up there discussing an issue, like say a Dick Morris and Karl Rove who expect you to think they discussed it openly while they spouted their prepared talking points with the host adding to it. Each type of cable network does this and a lot of Americans call it watching the news. I have called it watching the news. It's not. It's watching a magazine program.

Even before I realized this, I knew that I got most of my information from newspaper and magazine sites online, but how much better are they? This was Paul Krugman's opinion about that: Horse Race Reporting. Want the facts, want policy details, you better be prepared to dig.

I read newspapers from the New York Times to the Washington Times and check into compilation sites from Huffington to Drudge. Of them all, Google has the least agenda as it simply gives snippets of headlines to click and read more. It's your decision whether you go beyond that headline to find the actual story which might bear little resemblance to the headline.

Pretty much anywhere I look, I am unhappy with the news entertainment media of today. Where is real information? Why is covering something Sarah Palin's almost son-in-law said-- whether defending her or attacking her with it-- a story? Isn't that just a family feud more suitable for reality TV than supposed news programs? To me, this whole game has become a race for ratings and ratings come from feeding the expectations of the viewers and from stirring up excitement.

A good example, of the distortion for sensational purposes, was a rally in Texas for seceding from the United States. We were talking a few hundred people and a couple of speakers whom nobody outside of Texas had likely even heard of before. Let's be frank, a few hundred people can be talked into gathering for almost anything, at any time, for any reason.

The 'event,' which deserved zero news coverage from national media, was replayed on MSNBC until you'd have thought the whole state was rising up in rebellion, gathering their guns and prepared to spill blood. Each time it was presented, it was those few seconds of film footage. It was a small event that media tried hard to turn into something of significance.

What should they have been covering instead? How about what health care bill details, specifics of what exactly is proposed. The accusation that it covers illegal aliens even led one legislator to call the president a liar. From what I have seen, illegals get coverage now in ERs but won't under the bill but isn't this the reporters' job to flesh out? Serious stories are left to newspapers and online articles like: [We already have health-care rationing in the U.S].

Magazine formats like Bill O'Reilly and Keith Olberman are good at providing interviews, some deeper insights into a particular event, but that's it. They do not remotely cover all the important things going on.

How much in that week, while the media was hyping the revolution, did you see about the climate questions. They can't give you: [Climate Wizard]. But they could discuss:[Climate Trouble may be Bubbling up in the Far North]. Given how many people I have heard discussing their freaky weather this summer, isn't it possible that those questions might matter?

How about more journalistic pieces looking at why we are enlarging our troop levels in Afghanistan. This is an issue for all of us to look at seriously, not from a partisan angle (although DC seems unable to get beyond that right now) but asking the same questions that should have been asked about Iraq-- why are we there and can we really do anything about it other than losing 51 more lives each month?

Try reading [Afghanistan and Obama by Nicholas Kristof] with a lot more out there including history books to give warnings to the wise. This is a topic to debate right now not waiting until it's too late and we are in deeper.

How about a ton of important issues that we all need to stay informed about but we mostly aren't unless we spend a lot of hours doing research because the mainstream media didn't. The current situation makes people, from the right or the left, think they are getting news; but they are, with a few exceptions, getting partial truths and sensationalism leaving in depth news to somewhere else if people care enough to do the work.

Looking at what has gone wrong in this country, the shallowness of us as a people, and I thought at first it was the educational system which has turned into a test taking machine (thanks Ted Kennedy and George Bush) and not teaching real logic. That idea falls apart if you look at who attends those tea party rallies. Most got their educations, such as they were, years ago. So what the heck is going on?

Maybe too much Kate and whoever that was and not enough of the kind of programming that was on television when it began, shows like Omnibus. It, for you kids, was a mix of plays, informational programming and unlike say Oprah, it didn't have to compete for ratings. There was only one station. [Omnibus explained in Wikipedia]. Today there might be sponsors who would fund such... maybe but without an agenda... unlikely. And if it was there, who would watch it?

Are Americans so shallow that they must be entertained every minute by some new exciting event. Popularity of reality television shows tell you where this is going. If we don't find a way to get more people demanding real news programs, real journalism, I don't think there is hope for serious solutions to real problems. We can't blame this all on the media anymore than we can blame it all on our government. It comes down to us and how much do we really care what is happening? Do we get our news from diverse sources or only go where we hear what we want?

So what do you think about today's media and if you agree with me that it's off base, what do you think has gotten us here and what can we do about it?

(If you made it this far, come back in two days for one last in this series-- this time the Democrats.)