Politics and the Broadcast News Media
Nightly News =or= Nightly SpinNews
Sunday, 6 December 1998
The national broadcast news networks are dependent on local area radio and television stations to disseminate their program material. The local stations use the "public" airwaves to broadcast over certain assigned frequency allocations, which are licensed to them by the FCC. The licenses must be renewed periodically and the local stations must advertise the upcoming renewal locally and meet certain minimum "public good" requirements to be granted the renewal. Without the license, broadcasting is illegal.
To my knowledge, the licensing requirement is necessary whether the station is commercial-only or part of the PBS/NPR system. If that is not the case, I know you'll let me know.
I added the foregoing because it relates to the "public good" concept of my ideas regarding what I think NEWS broadcasting SHOULD be like. In my opinion, the reporting of news events should be as truthful, accurate and complete as possible. With NO added comments, innuendoes, jokes, winks and nods, editorial conclusions, interpretation for the masses or... instant analysis.
Truth is Truth. News should be News... period. Nothing else is required or needed.
When I'm tuned to a news broadcast, I don't need to be entertained. I don't want the talking head to interpret the news for me. I'd prefer doing that myself, thank you!
Points to ponder - and get the juices flowing:
Do the majority of news journalists, and their managers, lean to the left? Can journalists really isolate their personal views and beliefs from the news reports they create?
Do you think that Dan Rather, and his ilk, secretly thinks of himself as a kind of "national leader"? Do you think that he can influence public opinion on issues he thinks are important, simply by the manner in which he presents the "news" to the millions in his audience every night?
Is it possible the Nightly Anchors, and their top management bosses, have some agenda other than simply reporting the events of the day to the American people? What factors influence their decisions regarding which events to report, how to report them, or even... whether to even mention them at all?
Since the PBS and NPR networks are subsidized by taxpayer monies, can the threat of reduction or elimination of the subsidy result in programming decisions which "target" those who favor the reductions? Has this happened in the past? If so, is it legal; is it ethical?
Perhaps most importantly: Is reporting the TRUTH a paramount policy within the news departments of America's broadcast media? Or does the meaning of TRUTH depend on who's doing the defining, as is sadly happening now in Washington D.C.?
Do we, the people, have any influence in ensuring that our public resources are used for the overall long-term good of the republic? If it exists, how can we best assert that influence?
A few words of apology up front:
I'm eager to see everyone's views on this subject. But, unfortunately, I'm no wordsmith. And my typing skills are laughable. It's taken me several hours to formulate and type this simple header. So, please don't expect more than an occasional one or two line response of my own making. I often prefer copying and pasting the works of other, more talented, authors whose views I can relate with.
jim |
