>10 Reasons To Turn Off The Television: Thoughts On The Cable News Circus

>The more I read blogs and web pages the less I appreciate cable news channels. A person can rant and rave about “bias” until several herds of dairy cattle return to their barns, but that really isn’t the source of my discontent.

(1) There are better sources of news and analysis available. Again, say what one might about the tenor and point of view of print media, it still remains a better source of news gathering. Whether one reads the conservative Las Vegas Review Journal or the more liberal Las Vegas Sun, both offer more context, perspective, and information than cable news. For national news a person can select to read the Washington Post, New York Times, or Los Angeles Times online editions and find more, and more insightful, reporting on national and regional issues. Print media from both sides of the political spectrum provides better, and more thorough analysis and context. Indeed, cable news feeds itself on the reporting from major national news sources and their polling. How many times have we heard, “The latest polling from (pick a news organization of choice) shows that….? Or, “according to the The New Republic…the Washington Post…?”

(2) If it bleeds it leads. Television covers disasters extremely well. From the devastating earthquakes in Haiti or Chile, from the famines on the African continent, to the arson fires in Pennsylvania, and to the recent death of an animal trainer at Sea World — television does provide all the blood and gore we’d ever want in a truly attention grabbing manner. What television does NOT do well is provide sustained coverage of complicated issues and events. Televised coverage of the damage caused by Hurricane Katrina was riveting. However, how much time did cable news expend covering the loss of natural hurricane barriers in Louisiana and the Gulf Coast caused by man-made attempts to control the flow of the Mississippi River? Rain fall in Haiti now threatens to compound the havoc created by their earthquake, but the coverage is not nearly as extensive as during the immediate aftermath of the initial disaster.

(3) Trivializing the important and lending importance to the trivial. The United States has some serious budget deficit and national debt problems, a broken health care access system, a financial sector prone to the creation of bubbles and “creative” weapons of mass monetary destruction, and unemployment issues that need to be addressed. All of these will receive just about as much attention on television as a tragic death at Sea World, an apartment fire in New Jersey, or a multiple murder in Tennessee. Unfortunately, the tragedy at Sea World will launch few (if indeed any) prolonged discussions about the central issues involved in keeping wild animals in captivity for our amusement, or the funding available for domestic fire code inspections, or the political nature of a shooting in a Tennessee Unitarian-Universalist Church. Everyone, it seems, will get that “15 minutes of fame,” no matter how that translates into determining the relative importance of the matter being reported.

(4) Dueling Pundits. When issues are “discussed” the format tends to revert to the old “Crossfire” version from CNN’s days gone by. Television (being a disaster friendly media) delights in conflict. Therefore, we’ve come to expect that when a major national issue is under discussion the anchor/talent will introduce a “Democratic strategist,” and a “Republican strategist” to provide a balanced debate. Now the television coverage returns to its comfortable “conflict” mode. A discussion implies a deliberative engagement during which various opinions are offered constructively. A debate emphasizes more formalized opinions offered by contestants vying for a winning position. Thus, what we get on the television set more closely approximates debate than discussion. In fact, the most common result issuing from Dueling Pundits devolves into Dueling Talking Points.

(5) The uninformed or conflicted anchor. We’re regularly treated to the spectacle of an anchor “interviewing” a (1) pundit (2) ‘strategist’ (3) industry representative (4) politician. The problem with these interviews doesn’t necessarily need to rise to the level of conflicted interests as demonstrated by the relationship between CNBCs Maria Bartiromo and former Citigroup exec Todd Thompson. [WSF] However, it’s not often mentioned that Diane Sawyer moved from reporting on the weather to serving as an aide in the Nixon Administration [TRD] CNN’s Lou Dobbs’ position with CNN was subject to something of a scandal back in 1992 when it was revealed he’d taken from $5,000 to $10,000 for promoting the interests of Lehman Brothers, Paine Webber, and the Philadelphia Stock Exchange. [NYT] And, then there are the anchors who are simply uninformed. It’s entirely too easy to charge that some host/anchor didn’t ask an appropriate follow-up question to a representative of one of the four main “media food groups” listed above; we might have to assume that in some cases the ‘talent’ quite simply didn’t have enough background information on the subject to ask.

(6) Promoting The Cottage Industry of Fact Checking. Since the cable news media is perhaps (1) unprepared or (2) disinclined to offer discussion as compared to debate on pressing national matters we’re witnessing the growth of “Fact Checking” services. For that matter, the cable news shows have begun to utilize these to determine “who won” and “who lost” their contrived debates. Politifact and FactCheck.Org are the most popular at the moment. The hard, sad, truth is that the networks could have saved themselves the trouble by doing their own fact checking, but perhaps it’s easier and cheaper to allow some other agent to perform the service. However, the bottom line is that each time a news network allows one of the members of its “Food Groups” to spout unsubstantiated, mischaracterized, and sometimes out-right false statements, it’s the news network that loses credibility.

(7) He Said, She Said Passes for Journalism. Everyone wants to be fair. Both sides of an issue want to be heard. However, also lost in the Talking Points Dueling Punditry format are facts that want checking before some fact-checking service has to weigh in. What televised debates do not do well is separate fact from opinion. Return with us now to Junior High: (1) Facts are actualities, realities, and capable of substantiation to a level of certainty; (2) Opinions are beliefs not based on absolute certainty which may seem to be valid in a person’s own judgment.

Separating Facts and Opinions – A National Exercise

An opinion, no matter how assertively stated, is not a fact unless substantiated. The mere repetition of a talking point, no matter how often from the left, right, or center, does not validate the factuality of the statement. Even when statistics are cited some caution must be exercised. We can draw an example from the recent health care meetings at Blair House. “Alexander also said “50 percent of doctors won’t see new [Medicaid] patients.” But a 2008 survey says only 28 percent refuse to take any new Medicaid patients.” [FactCheck.Org] This may look like a factual statement, and sound like a factual statement — but it cannot be validated.

There was another statistical example during the session: “Sen. Tom Coburn said “the government is responsible for 60 percent” of U.S. health spending. But that dubious figure includes lost tax revenue due to charitable contributions to hospitals and other questionable items. The real figure is about 47 percent.” [FactCheck.Org]

Senate Majority Leader Harry Reid did a bit of cherry-picking during the meeting: “Sen. Harry Reid cited a poll that said 58 percent would be “angry or disappointed” if health care overhaul doesn’t pass. True, but respondents in the poll were also split 43-43 on whether they supported the legislation that is currently being proposed.” [FactCheck.Org] What we can say is that when people are offered specific elements of the health care legislation currently under consideration there is support for various individual components. A February 18, 2010 Newsweek poll found 81% of Americans in support of a form of health insurance exchange; 76% wanted a ban on discrimination based on pre-existing conditions; 76% wanted businesses to provide health care insurance with tax breaks for doing so; 59% supported an individual mandate with subsidies for those who could not afford insurance; and 59% supported regulating the industry use or abuse of rescission clauses; 50% favored a public option. Other possible elements were not so popular, including the taxation of so-called “Cadillac Plans,” and fining people who didn’t purchase individual insurance. [TPR] This element of “he said, she said” leads in turn to another problem in televised coverage of national issues.

(8) Imbalanced factuality versus Balanced Reporting. This is a close relative of the “he said/she said” school, and a function of our Dueling Pundits. However, no amount of training in how to look good on TV, or how to engage in a “talk over,” or how to maximize the presentation of one’s talking points, should ever replace cogent discussion. One of the more troubling elements of cable news issue coverage is how little comes from experts in the topics being developed. The public has the right to be reassured about their qualifications, and their perspectives. It’s called disclosure. There’s nothing wrong with having “experts” from the conservative Heritage Foundation or the libertarian Cato organization. There’s nothing to eliminate “experts” from the more liberal EPI or CBPP. There is a responsibility on the part of the media to identify its participants.

Once having identified their perspectives, our “experts” should be allowed sufficient time to actually DISCUSS rather than debate the issue at hand. If media ‘talent’ wants to perform a public service, then it might behoove them to eschew talks-overs, talking point repetitions, and other well rehearsed public relations ploys.

There is a need for media newscasts to present FACTS, and substantial opinions, but there is NO NEED for the presentation of unsubstantiated assertions masquerading as factual or substantive in order to achieve some form of artificial balance. Instead of invoking pride at “presenting both sides,” media broadcasters would do better to present the best information, regardless of the political interests that might be served.

(9) Indifference to the difference between policy and politics. Each of the cable news networks appear to be competing to be the best political reporters. A word of wisdom: Whether the politicians like it or not — politics is not the national end-all and be-all. Yes, it’s easy to cover. There isn’t a politician on the planet who doesn’t like to talk, especially on camera. It’s easy to fit into the Competition/Conflict format of disaster reporting. It’s easy to get hot quotes such that Politician A can be asked to comment on the statements of Politician B, and Politician C can opine about the relative sense of both A and B, ad infinitum. It’s also easy because it yields easy questions. Asking what national security policy reforms would best serve to better maintain our national ports is difficult. It’s much easier to ask what will be the political impact of Senator B’s position on funding for the Coast Guard. What gets lost in Political Reporting is the importance of the policy. What does it really matter about Senator B’s position on Coast Guard funding when the essential national security question is NOT whether he or she keeps the seat, but whether or not we are best protected from the dangers of insecure port facilities.

(10) Horse races are more fun and much easier than seminars. In previous election coverage we’ve been treated to such reportage as “will Candidate So’nSo be up or down in the polls after his comments concerning national defense spending?” Or, “will Candidate Thus’nSuch increase or lose her lead after her remarks on the Patriot Act?” These are the kinds of questions political pundits like to answer. They make easy “horse race” political reporting. They do not even come close to addressing the relative efficacy or desirability of either So’nSo’s or Thus’nSuch’s positions on major issues. In short, the cable newscasters have become enamored of reducing all policy questions to their lowest political denominator: Who will win the next election?

Asking better questions yields better answers. Little wonder the American public is confused. Somewhere amid the hyperbolic “Will Health Care Reform DOOM the Obama Administration?” and “Is the GOP Really Dead?” Among the “Gee, what’ll this mean for Senator Sludgepump’s re-election campaign?” In the middle of “This is a Government Takeover of Grandma’s Right To Die!” and “Without Single Payer We Are Doomed to Die!” Little wonder the American public doesn’t tend to perceive nuances and variable responses to policy questions. CNN asks “Why are states Obama won now trending Republican?” Are they? And, more importantly — aren’t there about ten better policy questions to which we could be responding?

But then, it really isn’t about news — it’s about selling advertising. Selling advertising requires getting ratings. Getting ratings requires grabbing attention, and attention grabbing is not generally an educational endeavor. Bill Maher has nailed it: “Put 12 people in a room with a camera and you have an event.” Attention grabbing requires events. Events invite pontification and prognostication. Pontification and prognostication are what pundits like best. It’s cheap. It’s easy. It keeps the populace entertained if not exactly educated.