“What’s News & What Ain’t”

Americans are spoiled. The vast majority of American households subscribe to cable television, which provides an incredible diversity of programming. There are “networks” that can satisfy practically everyone’s interest on a particular topic. Just click around and you’ll get the point.

People have a bizarre, almost cult-like devotion to the private lives of celebrities. While the propriety of such devotion is subjective, there are established media outlets where people can find out whatever’s going on in the lives of the Rich & Famous. There are nightly network programs and entire networks that are devoted to such themes.

Meanwhile, out there on Planet Earth, there are serious issues that affect each and every one of our lives. Among other things, there are the “War on Terror”, immigration reform, a Presidential election in less than eighteen months, Darfur, the crackdown on the free press in Venezuela that no one seems to be discussing in the public square. There are at least three “24-hour news networks” (each with their own political bent) and the local and network daily news whose mission ought to be disseminating fact and encouraging discussion on news of the day rather than providing entertainment.

It appears that the 24-hour news networks are emphasizing entertainment over news. Perhaps that’s nothing new, as Americans were saturated with coverage of Anna Nicole Smith’s untimely passing for months. It was troubling to understand how and why the media went to extraordinary details regarding what was a private tragedy. Why was it necessary to trample the woman’s grave? She passed away suddenly, it was sad, we move on. In the wake of Ms. Smith’s passing, there has been a spate of crises and issues affecting the private lives of celebrities that the 24-hour news networks have seen fit to prioritize as “lead stories” at the top of the hour.

What’s wrong with this picture? People over 50 most likely remember the news of the day having been delivered by Walter Cronkite in sober, measured tones. The last place where the private lives of celebrities would be broadcast was in that medium. In terms of information technology, we have developed exponentially and our information sources have multiplied accordingly.

However, when most people put on the “news” at top of the hour, they expect a report of what’s going on at home and abroad. We don’t expect or appreciate to learn about Ms. Lohan’s car crash and rehab or Ms. O’Donnell’s abandoning her “talk show”. Such items, while “newsworthy” to some, are more appropriately focused on the “entertainment” networks. People who seek news don’t care about being entertained, or about celebrities’ private lives, politics or feuds. If the highly publicized alcoholic daughter of an alcoholic father requires treatment, why can’t people simply allow her the opportunity to begin the healing process in peace? Similarly, if the highly opinionated celebrity cannot engage as an adult in civil discourse without resorting to childish behavior, she should simply shut up. No one with more than three active brain cells gives her any credibility about any subject matter.

Yet, this is what is being sold as “news” today. Perhaps the plight of human suffering lacks the glitter of Hollywood or the salaciousness of the next scandal, but it is very real and gets closer with each passing day. There was a time when the free press was truly independent and had the trust of the people, but that was before the established media giants were bought, paid for and spun by Disney, Viacom, GE and Fox according to the maxim of profit first. Their tentacles cover a wide swath of the media landscape. The news is only what they “tell you” the news is. When “news media” resources are spent on matters other than “news”, we have every right to ask, “what are they not telling us?”

So, what’s the solution? For starters, maybe we ought to think for ourselves. In this regard, the advent of internet has been a godsend. There are sources of information that will actually “inform” the reader of the news without political bias or leaving the “entertainment world” to those who have such interests.

EDIT: As this post was being written on Wednesday, the New York tabloids splashed the news of a Yankee ballplayer being seen with a "bimbo" entering an "adult entertainment" venue in Toronto. This is front page news??? As long as baseball players and other athletes have been going on road trips there have always been groupies ready, willing and able to satisfy their off-the-field appetites. This is not to condone marital infidelity, but for the media to "camp out" and photograph the private lives of celebrities is beneath contempt. If, in the case of this particular ballplayer, there are breaches of the marital covenant, shouldn't that be a matter between husband and wife? It's none of anyone else's business provided that a party does not bring the issue into the public domain.

Maybe Paddy Chayefsky’s visionary tale in “Network” (1976) wasn’t too far of the mark. All we need is the next Howard Beale to step up to the stage and the picture will be complete.