When I spent last spring in Washington, D.C., working for Iowa Sen. Tom Harkin, the intern room often had cable news droning all day. And I mean droning - if you ever actually watch cable news for more than one hour at a time, you will see the same stories over and over. There are no new developments, just updates on the lack of new developments in the handful of stories they are covering.
This is disappointing, because there are many stories that the media decides are not worth covering. A few months ago, Former Texas Lt. Gov. Ben Barnes spoke publicly about pulling strings to get George W. Bush into the Texas National Guard, so that Bush's odds of going to Vietnam would be greatly reduced. Unless you are a consumer of alternative media, this is likely the first time you've heard of this story.
Instead, you get entertained. Kobe Bryant and Scott Peterson's trials are, the media believes, more important to us than knowing facts about the upcoming election.
Don't get me wrong. I loved being entertained. It is an important part of life and, luckily for me, watching squirrels chase each other will do the trick. But having an informed, discerning electorate is the bedrock of any democracy, and the public should be able to decide when they get information and when they get entertainment. Unfortunately, the media now is shallow infotainment, not quite providing information nor entertainment.
I have seen numerous articles recently that have read something like: "Kerry then spoke about Bush's fiscal irresponsibility. When reached for comment, the Bush campaign replied, 'Kerry's the one that's fiscally irresponsible.'" Am not. Are too. Am not. Are too. What happened to investigative journalism that researches the issue and reports the facts, letting the reader make an informed decision?
It died when the bottom line became the greatest priority for media outlets. The expenses for time-consuming and often inconclusive investigative journalism are high, and the returns are low because other news sources instantly pick up the story. Compare the number of articles you have read comparing the latest poll results to the number you have read comparing the candidates' stances on health care. Why are the polls covered so much? Because a "horse race" campaign is dramatic and sells more newspapers than policy explanations do.
Mainstream journalism no longer rewards high-quality reporting or facts from journalists, but instead high-level returns and finance. Or, in the case of Fox News, as evidenced by the film "Outfoxed," pushing the GOP line is the highest ideal. It hasn't always been this way. In fact, until 15 years ago, this abysmal news reporting, with its lack of balanced viewpoints and fact checking, may have been deemed illegal.
In 1927, the Federal Radio Act required corporations who use public airwaves to operate "in the public interest," by covering important issues and debates and giving equal time to each side, as a condition of their license to operate. This law gave birth to the Fairness Doctrine, which asserted and enforced the idea of the media having a duty to keep the public fairly informed on important issues. The Supreme Court backed it in 1969, establishing that the rights of listeners and viewers override those of broadcasters.
Unfortunately, Ronald Reagan abolished the Fairness Doctrine by making three appointments to the FCC who all favored corporate rights (are there such things?) over individual rights. Congress fought to write the time-honored Fairness Doctrine into public law, but Reagan vetoed the bills. This change ended the requirement that the media present a fair view of public issues and provide equal time to both sides, regardless of their ability to pay for it. Now the only way to get on the airwaves is to pay for it; if you haven't got the money, maybe Ted Turner or Rupert Murdoch will help you out.
But not likely - don't expect to hear more about this issue on CNN or your local evening news. The ratings game now demands that news organizations cater to the lowest common denominator and don't rock the boat. If we are to ever rebuild the media as a reliable informer, a key to the potential in our democracy, it is one revolution that most certainly will not be televised.
Rob Sand '05.5 doesn't have a TV to watch revolutions, anyway.
