Stuck in the Sludge --- Journalists or game show hosts?
by Toby Vest
"It is unfathomable that the same channels can spend entire hours
dissecting every aspect of the Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson
and Martha Stewart trials but news stories and issues that effect Americans
are only given brief summaries."
Sometimes predictions come back to bite you in the butt. Only two months
ago I was forecasting a long, vicious battle for the Democratic presidential
nomination and now, in mid-march, the battle is over. John Kerry is the
nominee and Howard Dean has his own CNN special. Former presidential hopefuls,
John Edwards, Dick Gephardt and Bob Graham are crossing their fingers,
vying for the coveted VP spot and Bush is starting to unveil the campaign
machinery. So, what do we do now? politics politics
Well, if you’ve watched T.V. in the last few weeks the answer is clear: nothing. The policy debates and the focus on issues have given way to cliché filled stump speeches, negative campaign ads, handshaking photo ops and name calling. With eight months until election day and three months until each party‘s convention, Bush and Kerry are already lashing out at each other and the media is eating it up, so the public must be resigned to get lost in the noise.
I must admit to feeling let down by nomination process ending so quickly but I am more disappointed in the apparent disinterest of the media to the quality of their election coverage. I’m tired of interviews with two guests from opposite parties spouting bland rhetoric while never answering the question. I’m tired of journalists sitting back and playing silent moderator. I feel like Kevin Costner in JFK (as Jim Garrison) reading the Warren Report saying, “Ask the question, ask the question.” But just like in the movie, the question never comes. I suppose these journalists would say that they are being objective but I would say that they’re retarded. Objectivity is a goal, not a shield or veil of ignorance. Let me demonstrate my point.
This week the Bush-Cheney campaign ended what could be the shortest “positive campaign” in the history of American election by releasing its first attack ad against Kerry. The ad criticizes Kerry’s Senate voting record on defense and military funding (i.e. failure to support troops, veterans) and his tendency to flip-flop on issues.
During a CNN interview, two guests, one republican and one democrat, are asked to watch the ad and comment. The Democrat defends Kerry saying he’s a decorated war veteran and who could know more about the needs of our troops and veterans than one of their own. The Republican counters with how the voting record displays Kerry’s failure in foreign policy and defense issues, basically reciting the ad. And suddenly the interview is over. Roll commercial.
Now, tell me what roll the journalist had in conducting the interview? In this situation, how did objectivity help the public get an answer? But maybe answers aren’t where the dollars are, maybe answers aren’t what we need but it must feel gratifying for those journalists knowing those five years of Ivy League journalism school have entitled them to a large salary for a job as a moderator who reads lead ins and empty copy until the next commercial. They might as well be game show hosts. “I’m Anderson Cooper and it’s time to play the Feud” has a nice ring to it, don’t you think?
Why not ask Kerry why he has changed his mind on these positions? Why not ask Bush how he can accuse Kerry of not supporting troops and veterans when his administration cut $14.6 billion from programs designed to benefit veterans? These are just two questions I thought of off the top of my head but without journalists who are willing to ask these and other questions the media is simply reciting what the politicians want them to say and that is not journalism, objectivity or not .
It is unfathomable that the same channels can spend entire hours dissecting
every aspect of the Kobe Bryant, Michael Jackson, Scott Peterson and Martha
Stewart trials but news stories and issues that effect Americans are only
given brief summaries. We are forced to accept crumbs of information served
in tidy 30 second packages. This approach allows everyone involved to frame
complicated stories in a primitive and over-simplified way. Rarely are
the issues as cut and dry as T.V. news presents them to the public. I’ll
use another glaring example to prove my point.
Think about news coverage directly after 9-11 and in the years following. The initial explanation for the events of that day was presented as an attack by people who hated our freedoms and liberty. They couldn’t stand America because of all the things we had and everything they didn’t. This is a simple explanation but it does nothing for the understanding of why this happened.
The reasons for 9-11 are too numerous and all encompassing to list here but I think we all know that not even religious fanatics would kill innocent people because they hate our freedom, it‘s much more complex than that. It has less to do with freedom and democracy and more to do with policy and global actions taken by the United States which are seldom if ever reported.
And this failure of the media to report on multiple angles of stories is
blasphemy to the integrity of journalists everywhere. Journalists aren’t
supposed to pick and choose the news they cover, they are supposed to report
both sides of every issue and let the public decide and in that regard
America’s broadcast journalists are in severe dereliction of duty.
|
