To my dismay, my law office installed a flat screen high definition television in the lunch room a few months ago. You couldn’t design a better device for shutting down spontaneous conversation in the kitchen. I’ve also been dismayed to see the kinds of topics covered by the networks, hour after hour. The major news networks pump out endless headlines about war, terrorism, conflict, freaks, athletes and celebrities. There is also a constant droning on by economics-charlatans. All of it punctuated by commercials attempting to make me believe that I’m a failure because I don’t own something.
I’m trying to look at this television invasion as an opportunity to be more knowledgeable about television “news.” When I go in to refill my glass of water in the kitchen or grab a snack, I often take a small camera so that I can capture something bizarre about the “news,” so I can illustrate a post. I’ve rarely been disappointed. There is always something wacky going on, both on the shows and on the commercials. The way they present the “news” is news to me because I don’t watch any live television at home (we do watch movies, but no live TV), so I only know the news by clips I choose to watch on the Internet. Seeing bits of the news streamed in live, day after day, is shocking for many reasons that I’ll be discussing in future posts.
[1]Today I watched a CNN segment featuring modern news-less American political punditry that left me saddened that networks and shows like these are failing so miserably in educating Americans to be responsible citizens. I must note that many people consider CNN middle-of-the road news, but I see it as highly corporatized. So much so that it earns this sticker (created by Free Press). 
[2]
People who watch these shows called “news” assume that they are learning important information, but they are actually learning to allow corporations to do their thinking for them.
Today’s “news” was that Newt Gingrich has officially announced that he will be running for president of the United States. What should we make of this announcement? CNN is ready, able and willing to tell us, it seems. But viewers will not actually learn anything important. What they “learn” is that Gingrich is going to run, even though he has been making it known for months that he would run. Viewers are told that Gingrich has some ethics issues in his past and that his many divorces might haunt him. Not so, says the hack from the Republican Party, for whom any Republican candidate would be acceptable (OK, except for Christine O’Donnell). Why isn’t there someone unbiased commenting? How about hiring political independents for a change?
Intelligent folks who care know that almost all national politicians are bought and paid for and that this way of conducting elections is ruining the country. Who has bought Gingrich? We aren’t told. The show makes it clear that Gingrich is a serious contender, but why should he be considered “serious,” other than the fact that he has money because he is bought and paid for (like all of the other candidates, including Obama). We hear from the hack that Gingrich is strong on the “economy” and the “war on terror,” whatever that’s supposed to mean these days.
The piece ends with discussion about horserace politics. What do the polls say? They pull out some pretty bar graphs. What do people think of Gingrich, despite the fact that shows like this tell them nothing of importance?
In the absence of useful information, we are given slick graphics and energetic music. But then the segment suddenly ends. It’s time to turn to an armed conflict somewhere in the world, or to fret about “terrorism.” The Gingrich segment ended because it turns out that there wasn’t time to discuss the issues meaningfully. Maybe next time, and maybe not.
Print this post [3]
[4]