Shame on ABC or All the News That’s Fit to Miss

[RedEarth]

It’s bad enough that Fox News is allowed to call itself “news”. There should be a standard for using that term — for example, fairness, balance, timeliness, newsworthiness, etc. — so viewers have help differentiating real journalism from rank sensationalism and propaganda (Check out Parts 1-2 of “The Meter is Running”).

But if there were such a standard, ABC News would have been forced to change its name to ABC SmackDown Wednesday after it hosed the 21st, and possibly the final, televised debate between Barack Obama and Hillary Clinton.

Hosts Charles Gibson and George Stephanopoulos managed to waste the first half of the 90-minute debate on tabloid journalism. They pressed the candidates — mostly Obama — on verbal gaffs, controversial associates, and lapel pins.

.....

We have plenty of newsworthy conflicts in the nation today, begging to be debated during this presidential election campaign. Our energy policy conflicts with our national security. Our carbon-intensive economy is in conflict with one of the Earth’s major life-support systems. Federal spending is in conflict with fiscal responsibility. Corporate greed — most recently the exorbitant profits of oil companies and predatory lending by the mortgage industry — is in conflict with the ability of everyday Americans to make ends meet. Some of the stuff going on in the White House is in conflict with the Constitution. And those are just a few examples of what the next President will face, and the American people presumably will want to see addressed, next January.

I know that conflicts over superficial issues make better television than conflicts over national policy, in the same way that mud-wrestling is more fun to watch than chess. But if the Roman Empire were still alive today, it probably would fall because everyone went to the Coliseum to be entertained while Rome was burning.

From now on, when television “news” turns me off, I’m going to return the favor.

http://climateprogress.org/2008/04/17/shame-on-abc-presidential-debate/#more-2671

[DangerDave921]

1. you are half right

The debate missed a ton of issues in favor of "gotcha" questions.

But the term news does not need to be regulated. The public can discern what is good and bad journalism. I prefer freedom of expression and let the people decide. Heck, I'd ban TV wrestling if I had my choice but people lap it up. So let the people watch what they want to.

[Demit]

2. I think you miss the writer's point. He's not advocating regulation. He's writing about

the shame he feels as a journalist for what ABC considered worthy of 'debate' last night—trivia and trash talk. He is bemoaning the passing of journalism as a cornerstone of democracy. There is a responsibility that broadcasters have, you know, in return for being allowed to use the airwaves. That is (or used to be) an understood concept in this country.

[DangerDave921]

5. I understood

And I agree with the larger point.

But I bristle when anyone talks about having to get some kind of license or certification in order to provide news. If that were the case, we wouldn't have bloggers. And you think consolidation is bad? Imagine if the government controlled who would be allowed to show news!

[Uncle Joe]

3. I agree in part, however, I believe the public loses that ability to discern

when the airwaves are in control of a handful of conglomerates with their one way megaphones blaring their version of "reality" with little or no counterpoint or two way voice from the people.

People can be brain washed when information is controlled by a few powerful individuals or corporations. The polygamists in Texas are a prime micro example in the extreme.

I believe television has slowly dumbed down the critical thinking abilities of the people and when they lose that gift, corruption, and catastrophe are sure to follow.

The only silver lining I see on the horizon is the Internet as it democratizes information, creates a technological environment closer to MLK's dream than anything else, I know of and allows instant two way communication for the people, around, over or through the corporate media's filter, all for the whole world to see. I believe this is why the corporate media's controlled television was so relentless in slandering the leading political champion of the Internet instead of giving him credit for his vision and dedication to the people's best interest.

Speaking of fake Professional Wrestling, I don't believe it's a coincidence that institution and fake news both blossomed through television.

[DangerDave921]

4. Old Magazines

Remember when virtually all weekly mags had short stories? Even the so-called ladies magazines had short stories. A lot of our older (and deceased) writers got their start penning short stories in the 1940's and 1950's in these magazines. It was assumed that even average folks read. That soon dwindled and dwindled. Now short stories are relegated to obscure literary magazines or college publicatins. And poetry? Forget about it.

We are a TV nation, through and through.

We ban TV (and computer) in our house every Tuesday and Thursday. We have book time or play time or outside time.

[Uncle Joe]

6. I believe the inherent magic and power of television

hypnotizes and this phenomena has a detrimental effect against literacy, particularly for those raised by single parent head of house holds, but in many cases even with two parents.

I commend you for Tuesday and Thursday bans, having said that I see major differences between television and the Internet.

Television is passive, just sit and watch, no real thinking is required, just be prepared to accept information without question, unless television decides to present an opposing view or a fake opposing view. I do believe there is exceptional television programming, mostly PBS on "free T.V.", but again that's the exception. Commercials have become virtually non-stop, I've come to the point of almost developing an allergic reaction to so many commercials.

On the other hand, the Internet virtually requires some form of reading, I believe some people will become more literate even if by accident and this could foster a rebirth of those short stories you spoke of, only in a different format. Of course the Internet also features two+ way discussion as we are now engaging in and I believe this forces our brains to work a little harder, thereby enhancing critical thinking, because for the most part our ideas float or sink based on their merit. I also believe if we were debating on television or in real life, our skin color would subconsciously if not consciously be an additional filter to tune out when giving or receiving information, on the Internet, if you don't know the person, that doesn't apply. This is why I view the Internet as the closest technological manifestation to date of Martin Luther King's dream.

[DangerDave921]

7. I should clarify

I meant banning the computer for my two little kids, who tend to play games on there. My wife and I didn't want them to react to our TV ban by just going on the computer and playing games.

I agree the Internet is a major communications tool nowadays.