Thursday, January 10, 2013

Why I stopped watching the news


For those of you who don't know me, or don't know me very well, I lost friends and co-workers in the accident in Buffalo, NY in 2009. Until that event, I typically watched the news, as I felt it was almost somewhat necessary in order to know what was going on in the world. I still feel it's somewhat necessary to know what's going on in the world, mind you, but watching TV news is about the worst possible way to do it.

Why did that accident change my mind? Because it highlighted with little question what the news was, and still is: Entertainment. They are private companies, motivated by profit, who make their income off of advertising. What do advertisers want? Viewers. What to viewers want? To be interested, entertained, stimulated. They don't necessarily want to be educated. So, the news is actually quite effective at doing what it intends to do. The problem is that their intention is not to educate or inform. They claim it is, as it's part of their image. But that's not what people want. Look no further than the viewer numbers on PBS, the NASA channel, or any other dead or dying education network (we miss you, History Channel. Please come back to your original self. Pawn Stars is not history.) You'll see that truly educational, objective, rational TV dies. It's just not exciting enough to hold the viewers' short attention spans.

How did that accident highlight this? Ask anyone who had a story on the news about themselves, something they did, or something they know a lot about, and you'll get the same answer. The news is a master of skimming the exciting, controversial, sensational bits off of reality, and ignoring the rest. To add to that, they are absolutely obsessed with being the first among their competitors to do this. They brag about this in their commercials. They spew misinformation, lies, hearsay, and other worthless babble out as quickly as they possibly can, just to beat their competitors to it. So that they can stake some claim as the most effective news gatherers out there, because while their slow poke competitors were tripping over themselves trying to find their keys, they were professionals. On top of it. The first on the scene. It doesn't really matter what they are saying, so long as they say it first.

They are more obsessed with being fast than being right. Why? Because people tire quickly of a story. By the time the full details are out, it could be months later. It could even be years later. Any thorough investigation takes time. The more complex the issue, the longer it's going to take to sort it out. By the time the truth, or even the whole story is out, public attention has shifted to some other hot topic, and everyone clamors over each other to be the first ones on that scene. The mess the news left at that other scene is left to rot. It may not ever be mentioned again unless necessary to save their reputation. Only when someone publicly points out the fact that they spewed misinformation, lies, or exaggerations will they retract, correct, or apologize for it. If no one calls them on it, off they go.

I don't blame the news for this. They are just giving people what they want. The problem is that the people have generally forgotten how to research things for themselves. It's just so much easier to listen to some talking head on TV tell you what's going on than it is to look it up, research it from all angles, and decide for yourself. Plus, if you actually do take the time to research it, you'll typically find that you don't really care that much about that thing anyway, and stop researching. And this brings me to my next point:

You don't need to know most of this shit. Why does a kidnapping five states away need to be your problem? Sure, I could see the media spreading something like “look out for this kid, last seen with this guy, in this car,” in the hopes of getting the kid back home. But if they did that objectively, they'd have to spend a great deal of time covering every kidnapped child out there, or at least in whatever geographical area they have decided to care about. That's a lot more time than they want to spend on it, and that's a lot more missing people notices than viewers want to watch. So what do they do? They report only what the hot story is, as they have to keep up with their competitors. And, we're back to the core issue of what news really is.

Watch the news, even the local news, and give it this test: What, out of all these stories, do I actually need to know? Someone got shot across town? Nope. A teacher at some school your kids don't go to got caught selling drugs? Nope. Take it to the national level, and it gets even less important and relevant to your daily life. If it was important or relevant, I'm betting that you would hear about it through a channel other than the news.

The accident in Buffalo spurred a national media discussion about pilots, airlines, training, regulations, blah blah blah. All things with which I am intimately familiar. The watered down, misinformed talking heads on the news seemed like they couldn't even accidentally get anything right, at least not completely. It might be partly right. It might be exaggerated. Most importantly, they completely ignored parts of the story that weren't interesting. As any good entertainer should. If it's not interesting, cut it. By the time the accident investigation was done (over a year later), the issue had fizzled, and received little more than a passing mention on the news. Just when the truth was out there to be reported, they didn't care to report it any more. It wasn't the hot item it was a year before. They're on to other things. It opened my eyes. If they are so wrong and/or incomplete about this, why should I think they are right and complete about anything else? I shouldn't. And I haven't since.




No comments:

Post a Comment