Media & Govt. Term Paper

Amuse News
Alduous Huxley’s Brave New World and George Orwell’s 1984 are two of the greatest novels of the last century. When these novels were written the authors shed light on what the future could hold. These futures were dark and bleak. In one, we’re controlled by our dictators, in a state of mental and physical slavery we are forced into believing and doing whatever it is we are told. In the other, we don’t need to be controlled by a higher office; we give up on all that matters in search of what’s fun and entertaining. It has long since been debated which of the two novels was more accurate, and when 1985 rolled around, author Neil Postman weighed in. In Postman’s book Amusing Ourselves to Death, he explains why Orwell missed the mark and Huxley was spot on.
We live in a society where we are bombarded by the newest technologies, our televisions are filled with “reality” TV, and alcohol is used in constant excess. We are controlled not by our dictator, but by ourselves and the clutter we’ve allowed to engulf our lives. The clutter is not forced, it is something we accept, we love, we crave. Postman relates this self-indulgence and mindlessness to what we’re seeing in today’s news coverage; and what he sees is a grim picture. Now Postman, like Orwell and Huxley, wrote his book with fear of the future and this fear shines through with every word. Like Postman was able to be in the future looking back on Huxley and Orwell’s works, we are able to do the same with Postman’s. Amusing Ourselves to Death was published in 1985. A lot has changed since then, and like the two novels before, the actual outcome seems to not be quite as harsh as the prediction. Though these authors were slightly off in their predictions, Postman is accurate in his beliefs that some forms of news have been watered-down, turned into entertainment, and do not hold the basic journalistic elements they should; but however dangerous this may be, there are ways, seen in this election, to fix the problem by using technology and entertainment to educate, inform, and act.
In Bill Kovach and Tom Rosenstiel’s book, The Elements of Journalism, ten fundamentals are laid out that make up the essentials of excellent journalism. This book was also written because of the concern several journalists had about the direction journalism and news is going.
According to Kovach and Rosenstiel’s list, “Journalism’s first obligation is to the truth.” We’ve seen a wealth of coverage of this year’s presidential election. Some of it was undoubtedly false, but most of it was probably true. The problem is that news stations, cable news in particular, often seem more concerned with competing with each other, their ideals, and their rival anchors than providing basic facts, truth, and straightforward journalism. MSNBC and Fox News are perfect examples of this competition. Fox News has long been regarded as the conservative channel, pushing their own agenda, spinning their stories, and taking on those dirty liberals. Just in the last couple of years, however, has MSNBC begun to fill its new role as the liberal counter to Fox News. This competition and bickering is entertaining and exciting of course, but is this real journalism? Bias is fun if it’s slanted to your side, but it doesn’t offer up real, objectionable reporting that allows the viewer to decide for him or herself what they believe. We saw this contrast between these two news channels constantly in this election when it came to the matter of William Ayers. Fox News screams for us to learn more of Obama’s terrorist friends while MSNBC wishes they could hire Ayers on as a full-time staffer. These slants and spins are a form of entertainment that clouds the reality of what is really going on in the world, diminishing the role truth and objectivity plays in journalism.
Journalism’s first obligation may be to the truth, but “its first loyalty”, as Kovach and Rosenstiel say, “is to citizens.” Journalism is the connection between the government and the rest of the nation. It is the gatekeeper, muckraker, and informer of all that is important. This role is huge, but more and more we can see that this loyalty is changing from the people to money. “The bonuses of newsroom executives today are based in large part on how much profit their companies make.” And because of this, we see our news coverage driven by ratings and company profits. The news coverage provided is not about the details of the latest tax bill being passed or the way healthcare may effect long-term and short-term infant mortality rates; the coverage hovers around who called who a pig, what Sarah Palin’s teenagers are doing, and what shot of liquor Hillary Clinton is taking with the locals. Crown Royal? Good, that’s what I like. With journalism being controlled by these profit driven motives, we lose sight of the importance of this freedom we have. News becomes petty and un-important. We lose our sense of duty; the duty to inform, the duty to provide substance, and the duty to keep the people active and aware.
The third plumb line of excellent journalism is that its “essence is a discipline of verification.” Verification is a necessity of journalism, without it, journalists literally may as well be making things up. Until recently, journalists just had to worry about verifying their leads and sources and doing some policy run-downs and fact-checking of the latest gory attack ad, which Postman reports former New York Mayor John Lindsay wisely proposed be prohibited. Then came the internet. Hello, world-wide web. Hello, blogs. Hello, personal web-pages. And all of a sudden, everyone is a journalist. Countless stories were shot all over the web this election. Obama went to a Muslim terrorist school, Palin’s youngest son wasn’t hers, and John Edwards was a cheater. Like most stories on the internet, few of these held any ground. This web participation, however, caused journalists a great deal of extra work. Story after story was being uncovered via liberal and conservative blogs, and while some were sheer lunacy, others were incredibly alarming when it surfaced that they were true. The internet added a mass amount of verification work and also took out some of the credibility of certain forms of journalism.
The internet also created a gray area in another sense. The “practitioners [of journalism] must maintain an independence from those they cover.” The internet clouded up this fundamental by clouding up the lines that differentiated a journalist from the consuming public. In the news day in age we are in, every one is a journalist and every one is a commentator. You see this on cable news networks as well. On MSNBC, show hosts Rachel Maddow and Keith Olberman regularly fill positions on each other’s shows as guest commentators. Mike Huckabee, at one time in this election round a presidential candidate, now holds his own show on Fox News. Campaign employees are also used as commentators and regulars on the entertainment news venue. Granted these campaign advisors are great sources, but is it really “maintaining an independence” when you can see them on the same one or two shows three times a week?
Along the lines of maintaining independence is the fifth essential element of journalism, “It must serve as an independent monitor of power.” Though blogs have caused journalists a great deal of headaches when it comes to verifying, they have served a valuable purpose as well. Much like our government, blogs and the internet help set up a system of checks and balances. The press monitors the government and the internet bloggers monitor the press. However, as explained by Kovach and Rosenstiel, this “watchdog principle is being threatened in contemporary journalism by overuse and by a faux watchdogism aimed more at pandering to audiences than doing public service.” And furthermore, “the watchdog role is threatened by a new kind of corporate conglomeration, which effectively may destroy the independence required of the press to perform their monitoring role.” When driven by money, profits become the monitor of what is covered in the newsroom.
When it comes to some of the more helpful areas of journalism, we are at great risk of seeing them slip away. Journalism is to “provide a forum for public criticism and compromise.” Journalism is open to criticism and this facet of the media has been greatly helped along by the internet. Blogs, websites, and mass networking has enabled the criticism of the media in a more conversational and apparent way. TV, in the past, has been a medium difficult to publicly criticize in a timely manner because, after all, it’s hard to converse with your TV; however, with new technologies such as twitter and text messaging, television has taken on a much more conversational tone. This was seen extensively in this election on CNN. CNN had various shows incorporating technology which promoted a dialogue. On “The Situation Room”, viewers were able to e-mail responses, thoughts, and criticism to a segment called “The Cafferty File”, which comes on several times periodically throughout the two-hour program. During the show, viewer responses are selected to be aired. Also on CNN, viewers could text, Facebook message, MySpace comment, and post to the Twitter board during Rick Sanchez’ news hour. This technology helped promote and nourish one of the very important parts of journalism, however, when it comes to being a forum for compromise the media seems to be taking a step backwards. As discussed earlier, cable news often takes on a rivalry tone, promoting division and partisan thinking rather than compromise and understanding.
Journalism must also “make the significant interesting and relevant.” We can see the effort to make news exciting in today’s journalism anytime one of the major cable news channels is flipped on. Flashy graphics and dramatic headlines grace every story. Beautiful women conduct interviews at rapid speed. Catchy titles, constantly changing, are a must for every show. Just recently we’ve seen “Road to the White House” change to “1600 Pennsylvania Avenue”. It’s catchy, of course, but it is this sort of shallow entertainment that Postman writes so fearfully about. It changes journalism and news into something that is entertaining. Somewhat interesting and somewhat relevant, but most of all, it is pure entertainment.
This is also an area of journalism in which satire is given an important and vital role. Satire, though very entertaining, serves a much higher purpose, as we’ve seen recently, that gives a voice to a certain kind of taboo journalism. Journalists have an integrity to uphold, and that integrity involves being politically correct. When Sarah Palin first burst onto the scene this election, many were dumb-founded by her rhetoric, divisive policies, and “peculiar” background. Any good journalist knew better than to comment on her ridiculous “don’t-chya-know” joe-six-pack attitude and her self-absorption, however, the satirical world could do more than comment, and they took up that opportunity right away.
With the first appearance of Tina Fey as Sarah Palin on “Saturday Night Live” the Sarah Palin frenzy took a dramatic turn. Up until that point journalists were trying to take Palin seriously. It was at that point that satire was allowed to take over and “report” to the world the real absurdity of Sarah Palin’s Vice-Presidential bid. As Tina Fey strutted around SNL’s “Oval Office” set, interviewed with “Katie Couric” and out-performed “Joe Biden” in the talent portion of the “Vice-Presidential Debate” SNL managed to express what was on everyone’s mind, something that the news couldn’t do. It is this form of entertainment news that has healthy outcomes. Satire, though an entertainment, is a strong tool when it comes to analyzing the political world.
There was another form of entertainment news we saw this election that helped more than hindered in making the work of journalism and news interesting and relevant. Shows like “The Colbert Report” and “The Daily Show with John Stewart” parodied the ridiculousness of the everyday campaign bickering, poked fun at the many faces of the media, and along the way gained the attention of countless young Americans who, otherwise, would have had zero involvement in this year’s election. Some forms of entertainment, such as these two shows, are necessary to educate those who have engulfed themselves in the entertainment world.
As well as making significant news interesting and relevant, journalism “must keep the news comprehensive and in proportion.” This is one of the hardest parts of journalism. It can be incredibly difficult to make political topics comprehensive. Most stories are very involved, detailed, and layered; but with our fast-paced, self-indulged, entertainment-is-everything society, there is little time to squeeze in all of the elements of a real story into a two-minute interview, news package, or CNN “political ticker” article. Three articles published in The New Yorker magazine, “Battle Plans”, “The New Liberalism”, and “The Joshua Generation”, were excellent works of written journalism focusing on the ins and outs of Obama’s history, his rise to power, and his campaign. The shortest of these three articles ran about eight pages. Journalists for mainstream news outlets are not given the opportunity that writers for The New Yorker are given. They are forced to eliminate important details, glitter-up tragic events, and skip from one unrelated story to the next. The world of entertainment is drowning out the type of journalism that truly gives an understanding of issues to its readers.
Journalists are to be objective, but being objective does not mean disregarding one’s convictions. Journalism’s “practitioners have an obligation to exercise their personal conscience.” After the run-up to the war in Iraq, the media found a new sense of the importance of reporting what they knew was true and ethical. They developed a conscience. This is one way to argue that Fox News’ Sean Hannity and MSNBC’s Keith Olberman are getting it right. They are both clearly opinionate on what they each “feel” is the right thing in any given situation, however, their “conscience” seems to pull in a large amount of ratings, money, and entertainment; and therefore, is not a necessary element of journalism, but rather just another faction of the entertainment market.
And finally, Kovach and Rosenstiel bring up the often forgotten key element in journalism, “citizens, too, have right and responsibilities when it comes to the news.” As Postman’s title reads, “Amusing Ourselves to Death”, he makes the point that we are doing this to ourselves. There is no “Big Brother” is forcing us to fill our minds with useless content. We are not made to delve into the world of entertainment twenty-four hours a day. And we are certainly not required to shell out our precious ratings to the most superficial news sources. We are, in fact, amusing ourselves. We have the power to decide to stop consuming whatever entertainment is shoveled out to us and start demanding a standard in journalism, the standard that recently has been increasingly cast by the way-side. Audiences are being held captive because we have disregarded our role as active listeners. We need to demand the truth. We need to demand loyalty. We need to demand accuracy, consciousness, relevance, verification, and independence. Without the involvement of the people, the audience, journalists and their work are only accountable to their ratings and profits, which are easily gained with a few wordy headlines.
With that said, there is a solution to the decline in quality of the necessary elements of journalism and part of it is the audience’s involvement. By using the internet and new technology a whole new forum for discussion can be opened up. We have seen the beginning of what these new mediums can do these past two years, especially when it came to election coverage. Another area in which an excellent example was set was by Obama’s own campaign. Obama’s campaign took the things that have brought journalism’s standards down, changed them around, and got people involved. Through text messaging, websites, e-mails, networking sites, television shows, literature, etc. Obama was able to rally a coalition of people who were not just entertained, but were involved. Entertainment does not have to be the demise of journalism. Entertainment, when harnessed, can be an effective tool in educating and reaching those who would not usually be interested in what journalism and the news has to offer. Like “The Colbert Report” and “The Daily Show” have mastered entertainment news segments, and SNL has given a voice to political incorrectness, Obama’s campaign used various forms of entertainment, added substance, and made a new generation of voters aware of the political world around them. As Postman explains, he “must appear on television to promote a book that warns people against television.” To try to eliminate entertainment is irrational, impossible, and quite idiotic to even attempt. Therefore, entertainment must be transformed to reach its full potential as a helpful, necessary tool for communication.
Looking back at Postman, Orwell, and Huxley’s predictions, it is easy to see that they were slightly extreme in their apocalyptic outlooks. And after seeing the coverage of this year’s election it is clear that there are many issues in the way journalism is being conducted, however, there was also a hope given that there is a way to work with our entertaining world. After all, there will always be advances in technology and it is the job of journalists to maintain the basic standards of their work; and it is also the job of the masses to be involved and to stop amusing ourselves to death.