Mendacity on Channel nn
A month or so ago (May 24) I blogged the fact that corporations have no conscience other than the one focused on the bottom line of their balance sheet. I did not make the point quite so clearly as I could have that, for a corporation to succeed in business, it must never let moral consciousness intrude into its affairs. This is not to say that corporations should act illegally, but that they should not let so-called moral sensitivity encroach into their decision-making processes. If, for example, Glaxo Smith Kline can make a new drug that absolutely controls the effects of asthma (Advair) they should – and do – charge for that drug the price that will assure their highest bottom line profit. If they set the price too high or too low, optimum profit will not be earned. In determining that price, to the extent Glaxo concerns itself with “the greatest good for the greatest number” or with bleeding heart sympathies for those asthmatics who will suffer because they cannot afford the drug unless it is sold for a pittance, the company will find itself indecisive and, soon, bankrupt.
But there are some corporations – those in the news business – for whom concerns for the bottom line and moral sensitivity become, at best, confusing. A representative democracy cannot function well without an informed electorate, and news broadcasters – news corporations – would serve us well as a way of keeping informed if they functioned as a public servant rather than as a conscienceless corporation. Unfortunately, the news media focuses on its bottom line just as assiduously as any other economic entity. Their profits are a function of the size of the audience they can attract to their spiel. Consequently, the word “demographics” plays a major role in their program decisions, and they each have carved out for themselves a market niche. CNN plays to a “liberal” audience, Fox News to people of a far right persuasion, the PBS News Hour to a middle of the road, so-called open-minded audience, and CNBC – the stock market channel – to what has been termed “the investor class.” CNN, thus, while just this morning discussing the terrible events in the near east, decided to play their report against a backdrop of President Bush in St. Petersburg, leaning toward an attractive blonde, both laughing as if nothing in the world could be more humorous than the news. Fox, on the other hand, apparently unable at the moment to find a way to spin the news to appeal to their clientele, interviewed, in the same general time frame, a retired fashion model/movie star who had apparently given birth nine years ago to twins. The previous evening, a commentator by the name of Kudlow on CNBC, was seriously asking a panel of “experts” if indeed the war breaking out in Lebanon – and the attendant collapse of stock market prices – presented “a buying opportunity.” I had the impression that even if the death toll were to mount to “newsworthy” proportions, Kudlow would still wonder if this were not a good thing, seeing as how stock prices had been “irrationally” depressed by this minor conflict.
The casual observer of the “news scene” might come away believing that the news corporations are politically biased, but nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely shaping their “biases” around a well-informed view of their market. They are well aware that the listening public is biased, and that any news story that flies counter to what their audience expects to hear will arouse animosity. Worse, it will lead the viewer to “click off” to another channel. My wife, for example, as biased liberally as Attila the Hun was conservatively, will leave the room rather than watch our beady-eyed president smirking up the news. I feel a similar distaste for the Kudlow fellow, even though I feel certain he would put me in “the investor class.” His voice grates on my ear, and his cheer-leading enthusiasm for all things free-market causes me literal pain. I have even been known to develop a rash from the PBS News Hour with its super-sensitivity to telling both sides of every story. I imagine they would have discussed Robespierre's guillotine in econmic terms. “And here are Somebody and Nameless One to discuss the cost impact of guillotining as opposed to firing squads.”
It doesn’t help matters much that we may actually learn of the media’s programming priorities. They would still be playing to our prejudices, catering to our passive side rather than stimulating us to think actively about the stuff they’re talking about. It’s virtually impossible to listen to all the different slants they warp the news into, only slightly less than impossible for the normal hard-working father and mother of 2.4 children to synthesize the truth out of the hodgepodge the media have forced us to hear and see.
Small wonder that our representative democracy doesn’t function quite so well as it might if we were exposed to “just the facts, ma’am” instead of the coined and canned message massage we’re rubbed up with. At least, we could hold ourselves – me you, and you me – responsible for the mess we make of the ballot box. As it is, we’re no more able to vote wisely than Pavlov’s dog was to refuse to salivate at the ringing of the dinner bell. We’re not recipients of the news; we’re customers of news-makers.
But there are some corporations – those in the news business – for whom concerns for the bottom line and moral sensitivity become, at best, confusing. A representative democracy cannot function well without an informed electorate, and news broadcasters – news corporations – would serve us well as a way of keeping informed if they functioned as a public servant rather than as a conscienceless corporation. Unfortunately, the news media focuses on its bottom line just as assiduously as any other economic entity. Their profits are a function of the size of the audience they can attract to their spiel. Consequently, the word “demographics” plays a major role in their program decisions, and they each have carved out for themselves a market niche. CNN plays to a “liberal” audience, Fox News to people of a far right persuasion, the PBS News Hour to a middle of the road, so-called open-minded audience, and CNBC – the stock market channel – to what has been termed “the investor class.” CNN, thus, while just this morning discussing the terrible events in the near east, decided to play their report against a backdrop of President Bush in St. Petersburg, leaning toward an attractive blonde, both laughing as if nothing in the world could be more humorous than the news. Fox, on the other hand, apparently unable at the moment to find a way to spin the news to appeal to their clientele, interviewed, in the same general time frame, a retired fashion model/movie star who had apparently given birth nine years ago to twins. The previous evening, a commentator by the name of Kudlow on CNBC, was seriously asking a panel of “experts” if indeed the war breaking out in Lebanon – and the attendant collapse of stock market prices – presented “a buying opportunity.” I had the impression that even if the death toll were to mount to “newsworthy” proportions, Kudlow would still wonder if this were not a good thing, seeing as how stock prices had been “irrationally” depressed by this minor conflict.
The casual observer of the “news scene” might come away believing that the news corporations are politically biased, but nothing could be further from the truth. They are merely shaping their “biases” around a well-informed view of their market. They are well aware that the listening public is biased, and that any news story that flies counter to what their audience expects to hear will arouse animosity. Worse, it will lead the viewer to “click off” to another channel. My wife, for example, as biased liberally as Attila the Hun was conservatively, will leave the room rather than watch our beady-eyed president smirking up the news. I feel a similar distaste for the Kudlow fellow, even though I feel certain he would put me in “the investor class.” His voice grates on my ear, and his cheer-leading enthusiasm for all things free-market causes me literal pain. I have even been known to develop a rash from the PBS News Hour with its super-sensitivity to telling both sides of every story. I imagine they would have discussed Robespierre's guillotine in econmic terms. “And here are Somebody and Nameless One to discuss the cost impact of guillotining as opposed to firing squads.”
It doesn’t help matters much that we may actually learn of the media’s programming priorities. They would still be playing to our prejudices, catering to our passive side rather than stimulating us to think actively about the stuff they’re talking about. It’s virtually impossible to listen to all the different slants they warp the news into, only slightly less than impossible for the normal hard-working father and mother of 2.4 children to synthesize the truth out of the hodgepodge the media have forced us to hear and see.
Small wonder that our representative democracy doesn’t function quite so well as it might if we were exposed to “just the facts, ma’am” instead of the coined and canned message massage we’re rubbed up with. At least, we could hold ourselves – me you, and you me – responsible for the mess we make of the ballot box. As it is, we’re no more able to vote wisely than Pavlov’s dog was to refuse to salivate at the ringing of the dinner bell. We’re not recipients of the news; we’re customers of news-makers.
posted by Benedict S. at 2:55 PM
5 Comments:
mouse,Falling audience numbers and the success of the more balanced Fox
News channel has forced broadcasters like CNN, traditionally left
liberal in their editorial and opinion sections to replace tired old socialist commentators.
Leftists hate this of course. Losing the propaganda outlets they have
worked for so long to control is a serious blow to their politics.
Fox News' continual increase in viewership proves the success of the
business and it would be ridiculous of CNN to ignore that trend. They
are a business after all and must cater to what the audience desires.
Taken to its logical conclusion the idea of unbiased media is
ridiculous. No one would expect that in a debate on terrorism a
representative of Al Qaeda should be present to remind us that all
infidels need to die. Nor would we expect a debate on womens issues to
include a muslim cleric reminding us that women should cover up and do
what their men tell them to do.
The need to stay in business and make a profit is what makes different media outlets biased one way or the other - but it is also what keeps them honest with their viewers. In an age of unprecedented access to information even the little people can bring down the biggest players in the media industry - as Dan Rather has learned.
The problem is that everyone sees "the facts" differently...
John (A): Perhaps it is my bias but I cannot see the O'Reilly and Hannity guys as "fair and balanced." In any event, I was not trying to make a case for opinions about the news, but rather for a straightforward reporting of the facts. For an example, read the scroll line on the Bloomberg Channel. Then compare what you read there to the diatribe continually belched by Kudlow on CNBC. Bloomberg states facts, Kudlow, opinions.
CE: We may phrase our reporting of the facts slightly differently but for the very most part, facts state themselves. For example, that lady in Texas who drowned her five kids in a bathtub says she did it to send them immediately to Heaven so she and her mate could not harm them anymore. Now, we may quote her verbatim -- as I did not -- or we may paraphrase her words, but the fact that she made a statement to that effect is not debatable. We may, however, choose to believe what we will about the truth of her motive. What we believe would be our opinion, but we could never form our opinion unless we had access to the lady's words essentially as she spoke them.
The news should consist of facts, not opinions. That you and I may form different opinions about the facts is, of course, a given, but I object to the intermingling of fact and opinion that characterizes all of the news media we are exposed to. If CNN or Fox wants to editorialize, ok, but let them make clear the facts they are interpreting.
It's a matter of good writing. When an essayist omits any of the four sections of his piece -- premise, scope, evidence, and conclusion -- he can expect to be criticized by his peers, but when it is done in a public forum, where those listening are far away from "experts" on the essay form, we can expect the public mind to become fuzzier and fuzzier.
The ageless disputes on matters religious have grown from exactly the failure of those who wrote the various holy books to use the essay form. Their message is all conclusion: no premise, no scope, no evidence ... just opinion. Result: fuzz.
mouse,apparently I misunderstood what you meant.I was trying to explain why the news channels report the way they do.O'Reilly is a joke and I never watch Hannity and that other guy.OF course there is great competition between all those news channel networks.
In my opinion it's not the opinions that are being reported,it's how they report the news. The remarkable
success of Fox News, with its motto of "We report, you decide,"
suggests that many people suspect much of the mainstream media of
filtering and slanting the news. Unfortunately, such suspicions are
all too well founded.
How is one supposed to make up their own mind about this or any other issue when large parts of the mainstream media seem determined that you not hear one side? It is not -- or should not be -- a question of which side the reporter is on. The question is whether the reporter is there to report or to filter, conceal or spin.
One widespread example of media bias is reporting the arguments of one
side and the emotions of the other side. Usually both sides have both
arguments and emotions but the liberal media often report only the
liberal arguments.
On religious matters the only form of determining the past that can be valuable is concrete evidence.
Anything else is called Making Stuff Up.
John (A): If you misunderstood what I was saying it's probably because I didn't say it well. So there! Take that, you mumbly Mouse!!
Read today's blog for a better way of saying it. [I haven't started writing that blog yet, so all bets are off as to whether I actually say it better.]
Post a Comment
<< Home