The Media On the Media On the Media
I had a bit of a revelation a couple of days ago, about the nature of national television news as it stands today, at least as it concerns political/public policy stories. Lots of you have probably had this revelation already, but, hey, I work in the media, and sometimes can’t see the forest for the trees.
I knew President Obama was going to do a grand sweep of the Sunday morning talk shows to push his health care reform plan. I also knew there was no way I’d be able to watch any of those shows; that sort of leisurely Sunday morning television viewing ended for me three children ago. So I figure I’d catch the highlights, so to speak, on one of the network evening news programs. Lots of times, there isn’t a lot of big news on Sundays, so rehashes of the morning panel shows are pretty common. And I really wanted to find out what Obama was saying about rescuing health care reform—what changes he would accept in the bill, what he would consider unacceptable, etc. So at 6:30, my wife and I sat down to watch ABC News.
What we found out about the policy points of the health care legislation as it stood at that moment was exactly, precisely, NOTHING. Instead, the coverage immediately began with commentary about whether President Obama was overexposing himself by being on so many programs at the same time. Media experts followed political consultants talking about how it was or wasn’t a good political move for the White House to be doing this, and how it was impacting the polls, and how the rest of the media was responding to those polls… et cetera, et cetera, et cetera.. Not a word from any doctors, patients, uninsured people, or people dropped by their insurance companies. It was just the horse race, just the politics, with none of the policy.
When they went back to the studio after the video report, there were two people joining the anchor at the desk. Finally, I thought, some policy or medical or insurance experts who can actually bring me up to date on the status and content of the legislation itself, and how the President was presenting it. But I was wrong. It was two more media people—Matt Taibbi, a very good reporter for “Rolling Stone,” and a young woman, whose name I don’t remember, whose qualification for being there seemed to be that she had a website. We watched as they proceeded to spend two or three more network television minutes debating how the media was responding to the President’s appearances and what effect this would have in the polls. It was the media analyzing the media analyzing the polls measuring people’s responses to…..the media. I learned nothing about the health care bill.
This is what has come of network news cutbacks on hard news gathering, and the pumping up of the cheaper-to-produce opinion gabfests that now fill the cable news channels, and, increasingly, as I discovered Sunday, the network news programs themselves: namely, lots of talk—not many facts.
People have long criticized local news, where I’ve spent my career, for focusing too much on crime and fires and weather, and certainly some of those criticisms are justified. But at least when we tell you about a fire, we’re telling you about the fire, not about how the fire is being covered by the media or how it impacts the fire commissioner’s approval ratings; it’s the news, the facts, the lives it impacts..and that’s pretty much it. After what I saw on ABC Sunday night, I’ve never been so proud to be in the sector of the media I’m in.
Try this out: whatever national news you watch, whatever programs on whatever cable channel, pledge to only watch the segments that give you hard facts, or discussions about the hard facts (including opinion) concerning any particular story. The minute the focus changes to “let’s see what the media is saying about the media coverage of this topic,” turn it off, or change the channel. I think you’ll find you have some extra time on your hands. Maybe more time to hang out with your family on Sunday morning.
Comments: 14
I watched a short interview (from PIX?) with the author of the new book "speech-less", which I think is a betrayal, since book covers what Bush said that is supposed to be off record. Most, if not all, politicians are going to talk super dirty behind, not really a surprise. The author made Bush looks like a super rude person when none others are exactly saints.
Anyway, the author did say that Obama got overexposure, like "infomercial", which is not a good thing (I know liberal medias love him, but overcook is not a good thing). He joined different interviews and talk shows like crazy. Joining them itself is ok, given that Obama is gifted with PR skill. But really, overkill won't help him, not to mention it especially won't help him promoting his liberal agendas when people pay attention to details.
Why does PIX have a 6:30 news. What's next a noon news, then maybe news at 3, 5, and 7, or even 8. Then there will be news at 11. Isn't there ENOUGH OF THIS BORING/DEPRESSING STUFF ON TV.
All basic TV IS NEWS NOW. WHY IS THIS. IF IT'S NOT NEWS IT'S SO CALLED REALITY TV. BASIC TV SUCKS THANKS TO DECISIONS LIKE THIS !
Also
PIX's MORNING NEWS SUCKS
Av Westin (one of the creators of ABC World News Tonight), in his Book, "NewsWatch" discusses a series of questions he had for deciding what went on the air. -Is My World Safe? -Are My City and Home Safe? -If my wife, Children and loved ones are safe; then what has happened in the past 24 hours to shock them, amuse them, or make them better off then they were before?
When I was running local newsrooms, I had an adaptation of that list. As we were local, the "world" was defined as our coverage area. I also added, -Is my livelihood safe? People who listened to The NewsCenter format i had for radio, or watched the TV version learned nothing of Brad Pitt's woes, nor did we have professional pundits screaming. People learned about the actual events that happened in, or were pending to affect their lives.
Your thoughts are welcome at MattLocker at AOL.com
I agree with you and I don't Jim or I half agree with you is a better way to put it. I think the question did Obama oversaturate himself Sunday morning is a good one for the media to cover but they should have ALSO covered the things you're talking about. Introspection ain't a bad thing but you're right, there's also a very important public policy issue that wants to be discussed.
OMG! Anonymous has finally thought up a name for himself: Bud Light! He finally came up with something! Has Hell frozen over?
True, Bug, there's already too much news on Ch. 11 and on TV in general; but what else does PIX have to offer? More Maury? More Springer? More repeats of crappy sitcoms?
But check out Gentleman Jim Watkins, sttacking the competition! Taking the ol' claws out! "Watch US at 6:30, not them! They suck!" Way to go, Jim! That's what boring TV news really needs these days, a good, vicious, nasty fight! (A good fight, and big boobs! Nothing like big boobs in the morning, to start your day -- Tamsen's, Jill's, Emily's, Allison's, even Linda Church's... Heck, even Craig Treadway's!)...
OOPS! I meant to write "Check out Gentleman Jim
Watkins ATTACKING the competition," not "sttacking."
O WA TA GOO SIAM.
OH WA TA GOOS IAM.
OH WHAT A GOOSE I AM!
OM TAT SAT
WHATEVER.
Okay, Gentleman Jim, so you've torn old man Gibson a new one. That's good -- I like it. But that's just one down; there's still two to go.
I say, go for Katie Couric next. Make your next blog entry about what a wrinkled old hag she is. Talk about what a castrating witch she is, and how her ratings are abysmal. The people at CBS will love you for it -- they feel the exact same way about her!
Next, go after that wuss, Brian Williams. Let him have it; give it to him real good, that mama's boy.
C'mon, Jim, make television news exciting again!
The bigger problem is that you, Jim, tuned into ABC for your information on Obama's plan.
Try FOX, dude! And if you're to Lib to do that, try...CNN!
Hey Bud Abbott/Bella Abzug/Whatever you want to call yourself.
I suggest Bonehead. I am not the anonymous. He or She is cool.
I have a name.
Sure, sure, Bug Light, whatever you say...
Only Anonymous writes "PIX's MORNING NEWS SUCKS."
And only Anonymous would say, "He or She is cool." No one thinks you're cool. Even YOU know you're not cool.
Bud/Bella
More than 1, actually a large number of people think there morning news sucks. THAT"S BECAUSE IT DOES SUCK. More than one person do think this, bonehead.
And anonymous is cool, you're the one that's not, with all your dumb names.
@Bud Abbott
Channel 11 is full of boobs, and by that I mean the entire staff.
The women on this channel are terrible. They always seem to have blurt out some unfunny joke or tidbit about their lives no one cares about.
Why does the morning entertainment reporter always wear jeans? Don't any of these women dress professionally; they are on camera you know.
The 6:30 show is more than a newscast. It's a different way to bringing news, events, and other stories to you smooth and quick. No other newscast does that in the Tri-State. You can always count on Jim and Kaity to bring you the best information possible without the runaround. The show is a change, some will like it this way some won't but its creative and I know that many people who ive come across find it very interesting and informative