“Taking a break from news” seems to be 2009’s staycation of choice. After a while, watching screaming matches and listening to red herring, alarmist arguments becomes infuriating and depressing. No wonder people walk away. I can't accept that this is a matter of attention to current events, though, but the consumption of irresponsible news. I single out the 24-hour news networks as a main culprit.
Twenty-four hour cable news networks are a bad idea. Watching them is a worse one. The sure-fire way to keep eyeballs on screens is to promote fear and sensationalism; to gain broad viewership, issues become dumbed-down dichotomies of pro versus con that even the laziest viewers will grasp; to beat the competition, stories aren’t properly verified before the rush to air; to create famous “news personalities,” cleavage and bad behavior are rewarded with regular appearances (or sometimes even their own shows). These networks do offer good journalists like Zakaria and Amanpour, but they seem too few and far between. Twenty-four programming relies on quantity of words over quality of reporting. Although the American marketplace of ideas is one of the best ideas we’ve had, its success relies on responsible judgment. Most programs on the 24-hour news networks are at the 99-cent table at the marketplace of ideas, and it’s up to us to invest in something better. It seems that many people watch these channels not to learn about their world but to solidify their belief that they are smarter or more ethical than the people on screen, an easy feat against such competition.
The big issues are as tough as they are critical, and to respond wisely we must appreciate their complexities. Healthcare, the wars in Iraq and Afghanistan, immigration, free trade, alternative sources of energy, education quality and affordability: none of these provide an easy option free of unfortunate consequences, and (to quote Princess Bride) anyone who says differently is selling something.
Quality journalism is out there. We must choose it. If your means of gathering news makes the issues seem black and white or makes humanity seem either wise or stupid, then it’s not the right choice. If your means of gathering news propels you to mock more than you learn, it’s not the right choice. If your means of gathering news involves raised voices or name calling, again, it’s just not it. Although I cringe when I come across these methods and realize that committing any of them would have failed me out of my college journalism program, I blame the people who refuse to change the channel or turn off the TV more I blame those on the air. These networks are like the fast food of news: fine to consume every once in a while, but only alongside a steady diet of healthier fare.
As for me, I love settling into my reading chair with a big cup of coffee and my New York Times or Atlantic Monthly, to work with NPR in the background, to check in with NBC Nightly News with Dreamy Brian Williams most evenings, and to end my night with BBC World News. This is a good balance for me: these outlets are thorough, informative, and don't freak me out with apocalyptic predictions or crazy CGI. They don't pander to ego; I don’t want news to make me feel like the smartest person alive, and I don’t wish to believe that people I disagree with are simpletons or evil-doers. Instead I want my news to compel me to think, “Well crap, I didn’t think about it that way.”
The 24-hour networks are making us stupid, making us depressed, and at times, making us hate. How we process information affects the functioning of the brain, which needs exercise like any other muscle. Not much mind-flexing occurs while listening to yelling matches consisting of “I’m right, and you hate America!” coming from either side. Let’s not be in such a rush to consume news that we turn to the 24-hour networks. Let’s not be in such a rush to call someone an idiot that we forget to make ourselves intelligent.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
1 comment:
Possibly my favorite blog so far - bravo.
Post a Comment