You know what’s funny?
Everyone these days is an expert on politics. And they didn’t go to college to get that Ph.D.
How did that happen?
When I was growing up, we had three TV channels. We got local news at Noon, 5 pm to 6:30 pm, and at 11 pm.
National News was the caboose on the news train, at 6:30 pm.
It was a half-hour glimpse into the whole world. There was some national news. Early on the Vietnam War dominated the broadcast, starting with how many young American lives had recently been lost. There may be a story or two from overseas. There was always a story about the president doing something, but he wasn’t top of mind. At my age, it felt like we were just “checking in” on him.
Travel now with me from the 1970s and the Watergate scandal, through the energy crisis, a peanut farmer President and then a movie star taking center stage.
Along the way, technology began to wire cable into our homes. I couldn’t fathom how long it would take to wire EVERYONE IN THE US to the satellites in geosynchronous orbit above the Earth. But they did it… and while it took some time… to want to pay for more than three channels, the novel new tech caught on.
… leading to CNN, the all news network. We all wondered, is there enough going on in the world to dedicate an entire channel to just news? Of course, in the beginning there wasn’t. But eventually programmers learned how to produce longer pieces, features, and specialty shows. Repetition was a side effect. In fact, the idea of a repeating 30 minute newscasts throughout the day stuck for a while (Headline News Network) but that eventually gave way to Personalities anchoring the days events and moved away from the typical :30 minute news wheel.
With the advent of Cable News came Roger Ailes and his quest to bring the conservative side to an industry seen by some as “liberal.”
As he invented Rush Limbaugh, he then invented Fox News. And the repetition began with new voices.
People watched the new cable news because it was novel, and I’m sure some were truly interested. People listened to Rush, not because they particularly cared about politics. Most talk shows were about everyday living. Local politics, interviews with famous people. But Rush talked politics, something most knew little about, other than how to vote, where to buy their license plates and who their mayor was.
Rush was different. People listened because he was interesting. Fresh. Confident, bold, and even funny. He had a great antagonist in the White House, Bill Clinton, with plenty of fodder for conservatives to chew on. Listeners began to believe Rush’s “infotainment” delivered as news commentary. Opponents worried about his message.
After 20+ years of Rush’s influence, repetition, name-calling (femi-Nazis anyone?) the audience who’d been ignored had been “schooled.” Actually self-schooled, as Rush is. Now everyone is an expert in government politics, “the swamp”, conspiracies, Benghazi and that evil Hillary. We watch the news and spew opinions we hear and agree with. When pressed for deeper explanation, interpretation or analysis, most struggle with providing more than the talking points they hear and admit they don’t understand it all, then begin pointing fingers to the other side, whom they see as the enemy.
Today, journalism is in the cross hairs.
According to the American Press Institute, here’s what journalism is:
“News is that part of communication that keeps us informed of the changing events, issues, and characters in the world outside. Though it may be interesting or even entertaining, the foremost value of news is as a utility to empower the informed.
The purpose of journalism is thus to provide citizens with the information they need to make the best possible decisions about their lives, their communities, their societies, and their governments.”
Journalists give you the information. You have a responsibility to analyze it. And if you wish, do something about it.
I had a conversation with an old friend over the weekend. We are on opposite political sides, but truly care about each other and often find ourselves in deep conversations about the role of government, taxes, foreign affairs, personal responsibility and the like. I learn a lot from my pal, and I know he feels the same. We don’t always change each other’s mind, but we often find more common ground than we expect to uncover.
Yet I found myself somewhat surprised when he went off on CNN’s Jim Acosta, who is one of the more vocal modern journalists who are breaking away from tradition of “not taking sides” and pointing out what he believes are dangerous messages and actions from the White House. The list of names of journalists doing this is growing longer. Anderson Cooper. Chris Cuomo. Rachel Maddow.
My pal wants Acosta to “stop giving me your damn opinion and just tell me the news.”
I thought about that for a moment and tried to explain to him why someone like Acosta would “inject” himself in the story (as my pal asserted) or offer his opinion about the President’s words.
My friend is angry at the press corps, whom he believes “asks the same stupid question over and over” because he thinks they have nothing else to say, or are trying to trick the person being interviewed.
My buddy is also upset at journalists who are going after the Republican in office and sees it as unfair because “they didn’t do that to Obama!”
I wanted my friend to understand what a journalist is thinking, so allow me to summarize what I told him, from a media member’s perspective.
- Journalism, at its heart, is about taking sides. We report about people who do things we consider bad, like killing and thieving. We don’t fill up the newscast with all the good things that are going on, because no one wants to watch that for news. They want to know whom to look out for, where the danger lies, and do they know someone who’s wanted? If a journalist didn’t “judge” someone, s/he wouldn’t cover those suspected or accused of crimes, or look for wrongdoing or investigate where tax dollars are going.
- By the time you get to the White House press corps, you’ve earned your stripes. Networks and giant newspapers don’t put junior journalists on the WH beat. They have solid credentials and have proven to their employers that they know a) the newsworthy issues (news judgment) and b) how to get the story and tell it compellingly. You don’t have interns asking the President over and over about “collusion” for example because they don’t know what else to ask.
- Journalists are not working to sell papers and be on TV. They are people who want to tell important stories they believe need telling to an audience who doesn’t have the access they do. Journalists are humans who understand that THEY are part of the checks and balances of our government. Without a free press, to uncover wrongdoing, corruption, and conspiracies, our government would soon turn against the electorate for their own gain.
- Finally, if you love jumping on the anti-media bandwagon, why don’t you invest some of your own time to walk in their shoes? Trust me, if you saw the ethics, the amount of work, the checking and double and triple checking of sources and facts, the dedication to professionalism, you would stop condemning ALL MEDIA as “fake news.” You would appreciate that these citizens are working FOR YOU, to find out where your tax dollars are going, to uncover corruption, fraud, human trafficking, and much more. It’s FOR YOU. The information is presented to YOU, for YOU to decide what to do with it. Do you call and complain to the responsible party? Vote the corrupt elected official out of office? Do you start a petition to change a law because you don’t like it? Or are you like most people, unfamiliar with the whole process, seeing it as too much work, or looking for someone to blame?
Calling news as “fake” attacks the very heart of what our enemies have tried to destroy. Democracy. Freedom.
Don’t let the likes of Hitler, Putin and bin Laden win. #NotTheEnemy