Is it news?

Tuesday, July 9, 2002
Renae Bottom

I wonder what verdict history will render regarding 24-hour news networks?

Is it possible that we'll look back and realize they had a negative influence on society?

The rise of the 24-hour television news channel is a relatively recent phenomenon. It followed the wave of "specialization" in broadcasting, the same movement that gave us an all-sports channel, an all-extreme-sports channel, an animal channel, a travel channel, a food channel, a history channel, a science-fiction channel, a few classic movie channels, and a TV Guide channel devoted to covering all the other channels.

In many ways, this race to specialize has been positive. Worthwhile programming that might never have found an audience airs daily on a host of networks.

I know more about black holes, volcanoes, asteroids, chimpanzees, pirates, pyramids, opera singers, ukuleles, sky diving, Cajun food, shark behavior, the Civil War, jazz, acne, George Washington, and George C. Scott, than I would have without my remote control in hand.

But when it comes to "news," the programming vacuum created by continuous air-time has a potentially negative effect. What does it take to keep people tuned in? Is "reporting" the news enough, or is the "creation" of news sometimes necessary in order to maintain ratings?

I've watched the Discovery Channel. I know about shark behavior. At the first sign of blood, the feeding frenzy starts. Where advertising dollars and celebrity broadcasting careers are at stake, the feeding frenzy surrounding a single event is automatic, a behavior driven by the instinct for survival.

To get closest to the action, to show the most shocking images, to air the most inflammatory words--to go for the jugular in terms of public reaction--is arguably the most "successful" style of reporting.

Telling the truth, in context, is sometimes lost in the search for the indelible sound bite that will be picked up around the nation, or around the world. The temptation to exploit the sensational is tantalizing indeed, when millions of dollars are at stake.

How many angles are available when covering a single event, especially one with tragic consequences? Talk to the "experts." Pick apart the action and reaction of everyone involved, from victim to passerby, from individual public servant to national agency director, in order to assign blame.

Play armchair quarterback. What should this or that individual have known? Done? Not done? Done faster, slower, with more force or less force? Said sooner? Later? Not said at all?

Hind-sight is 20/20, all right. While no one claims that investigative reporting isn't necessary, the current media psychology of assigning culpability for each and every newsworthy event has grown into nothing short of a three-ring farce.

Is it really possible to prevent a psychotic individual, intent on doing harm and not caring whether he lives or dies, from doing damage in a public place? The sad truth is, probably not. Certainly not 100 percent of the time, no matter how many security precautions are implemented.

But people are afraid. And when they're afraid and feeling helpless, they look for someone to blame. This or that thing should never have happened. It's not right. So it must be somebody's fault.

If only life were that simple. It's not. Sometimes good people make bad decisions under pressure. Sometimes bad people successfully carry out heinous plans, with tragic consequences.

I watch my share of television news. I gain some useful information, and some not so useful. Does the 24-hour demand for viewers contribute to a juvenile spirit of nit-picking and blame-casting? I think so. I guess it's all a question of revenue.

Respond to this story

Posting a comment requires free registration: