Since CNN first demonstrated the 24-hour news network’s potential for success during the Persian Gulf War of 1991, millions of Americans have tuned into it and its rivals, FOX and MSNBC, for up-to-date coverage of breaking news and analysis of significant stories at any time during the day. However, a brief examination of the coverage given to recent events by these three networks gives the impression that, as institutions, they do not view the journalistic objective of keeping the public accurately informed as their chief concern. Instead, insightful, accurate journalism takes a back seat to the generation of ratings and revenue through sensationalizing particular stories while relegating other pertinent, and often more important events, to a few fragmented sentences scrolling across the bottom of the screen.
During Hurricane Katrina, the news networks televised the devastation and tragedy played out in New Orleans with such effectiveness that their coverage prompted a public outcry for action. In the process, this coverage highlighted the poverty plaguing many residents of the city. Regrettably such widespread poverty is not a phenomenon confined to New Orleans, and the growth of America’s underprivileged class undermines the strength and vitality of the nation as a whole. But this social stratification has received scant attention since the flood waters receded in New Orleans. Because the 24-hour news networks only cover those stories they believe will keep viewers in their seats, they tend to portray events such as the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina as an anomaly, rather than the result of underlying systemic problems, as doing so would require actual analysis of those causal societal problems. Failure to report on significant societal issues such as the desperation and destitute living conditions of millions of Americans essentially deprives the general public of pertinent information relating to the state of the nation.
While an event such as the devastation of Hurricane Katrina is clearly worthy of such coverage, industry favorites such as a missing suburbanite child, a run-away bride, or the legal woes of certain Hollywood celebrities are less worthy of the attention lavished by the news networks. Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial and Natalie Holloway’s disappearance in Aruba each dominated the airwaves for several weeks; however, no corresponding stories are forthcoming regarding a comprehensive examination of the frequency of child abuse cases or the staggering number of child disappearances and abductions that occur throughout the United States each year.
Coverage of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq serves as a vivid reminder that the news networks continue to subscribe to the broadcast news proverb of “if it bleeds, it leads”. Most of the 24-hour news networks’ coverage of the war in Iraq has dwelt upon casualties sustained by the American military and the Iraqi populace. Without question, so much loss of life is tragic — to date 2,238 American troops killed and another 15,955 wounded, while Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated anywhere between 38,000 and 200,000, with possibly another 300,000 injured. Casualties have become a metric for defining the success or failure of an effort without a corresponding examination of the larger context in which they occurred. There has been a lack of real in-depth analysis of Iraq’s history, the rise of sectarianism and tribalism; the difference between insurgents, foreign jihadis, and militiamen; the substance of new Iraqi constitution, the results of recent parliamentary elections, the state of the Iraqi economy, or the effects of the reconstruction effort upon individual Iraqis. However, part of the reason for superficial coverage is almost certainly due to the difficulties journalists reportedly experience in traveling throughout the country. Yet journalists embedded with American military forces in some of the more pacific parts of Iraq almost certainly have the opportunity to investigate and report on these sorts of human interest stories. Additionally, there are many experts on Middle Eastern affairs scattered throughout the various think tanks, colleges, and universities from which knowledge and insight could be drawn to offer more comprehensive analysis instead of interviews with the typical standard fare of punditry substituting for experienced analysis of comprehensive strategies for stabilizing Iraq.
Comprehensive journalism and analysis are also exceedingly deficient in covering legislative action and debate of the U.S. Congress, as well as rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Refusal to regularly disseminate political debate and legislative action or court rulings that will directly affect the American people represents a severe dereliction of the media’s duty to report and keep the public well-informed. Although cable channels such as CSPAN televise the daily legislative activities of the House of Representatives and Senate, these channels typically refrain from offering analysis and dissection of the legislative process or discussion of how particular bills or Supreme Court decisions will affect the public. For this reason, one might reasonably expect the news networks to devote their journalistic efforts to substantive reporting and analysis of Congressional activity and Supreme Court rulings, such as the renewal of the Patriot Act, appropriations for the Defense Budgeting and Labor HHS bills, or Supreme Court cases involving imminent domain, desegregation, or the right of habeas corpus. However, as of late, coverage of the Supreme Court remains minimal – superficial at best, while Congressional debate and hearings are limited to a few minutes of live broadcast followed by political speculation without substantive analysis of the issue.
However, broadcast media networks point to ratings and various studies to explain their programming choices – suggesting that it is the American people who prefer the sensationalist coverage as opposed to viewing newscasts with a wider scope and breadth of information presented. Advertisers and particular groups such as Mediascope, a non-profit media research and policy organization, contend that "market research suggests that stories of crime and violence increase newscasts' ratings." Yet, other independent studies have shown that the American public would much rather view quality programming as opposed to what the broadcast media perceives as preferable news coverage. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that, "many of the conventional ideas about what works in TV news -- high story count, flashy production, emotion over substance, targeting -- are demonstrably wrong." Essentially, the cable broadcast stations are using a false premise as an excuse to continue to inundate the American public with sensationalist and deficient news coverage.
The result of this trend of delivering shallow and sensationalized coverage by the 24-hour news networks creates an overall lack of awareness and understanding of important issues and events by the majority of the American public. This failure to provide all pertinent information relating to the various issues and events that, to one degree or another, could affect the daily lives of the general public, presents a significant danger to the future viability of the U.S. for the obvious reason that in a representative democracy, it is the people who ultimately decide the future direction of the nation through their choice of elected officials at the ballot box. FOX, CNN, and MSNBC have a responsibility, as significant media outlets, to provide accurate and up-to-date news and in-depth analysis of significant -- and sometimes not so seemingly significant -- issues that the American people want and need to be aware of in order to understand what the federal government is doing on their behalf. Until this trend of sensationalized coverage and inadequate analysis of important events is replaced with wide-ranging dissemination of information and greater scrutiny of the key issues, the American people will never posses the power that comes from true knowledge and understanding to hold the nation’s leaders and judges accountable for their actions.
During Hurricane Katrina, the news networks televised the devastation and tragedy played out in New Orleans with such effectiveness that their coverage prompted a public outcry for action. In the process, this coverage highlighted the poverty plaguing many residents of the city. Regrettably such widespread poverty is not a phenomenon confined to New Orleans, and the growth of America’s underprivileged class undermines the strength and vitality of the nation as a whole. But this social stratification has received scant attention since the flood waters receded in New Orleans. Because the 24-hour news networks only cover those stories they believe will keep viewers in their seats, they tend to portray events such as the devastation wrought by Hurricane Katrina as an anomaly, rather than the result of underlying systemic problems, as doing so would require actual analysis of those causal societal problems. Failure to report on significant societal issues such as the desperation and destitute living conditions of millions of Americans essentially deprives the general public of pertinent information relating to the state of the nation.
While an event such as the devastation of Hurricane Katrina is clearly worthy of such coverage, industry favorites such as a missing suburbanite child, a run-away bride, or the legal woes of certain Hollywood celebrities are less worthy of the attention lavished by the news networks. Michael Jackson’s child molestation trial and Natalie Holloway’s disappearance in Aruba each dominated the airwaves for several weeks; however, no corresponding stories are forthcoming regarding a comprehensive examination of the frequency of child abuse cases or the staggering number of child disappearances and abductions that occur throughout the United States each year.
Coverage of the occupation and rebuilding of Iraq serves as a vivid reminder that the news networks continue to subscribe to the broadcast news proverb of “if it bleeds, it leads”. Most of the 24-hour news networks’ coverage of the war in Iraq has dwelt upon casualties sustained by the American military and the Iraqi populace. Without question, so much loss of life is tragic — to date 2,238 American troops killed and another 15,955 wounded, while Iraqi civilian deaths are estimated anywhere between 38,000 and 200,000, with possibly another 300,000 injured. Casualties have become a metric for defining the success or failure of an effort without a corresponding examination of the larger context in which they occurred. There has been a lack of real in-depth analysis of Iraq’s history, the rise of sectarianism and tribalism; the difference between insurgents, foreign jihadis, and militiamen; the substance of new Iraqi constitution, the results of recent parliamentary elections, the state of the Iraqi economy, or the effects of the reconstruction effort upon individual Iraqis. However, part of the reason for superficial coverage is almost certainly due to the difficulties journalists reportedly experience in traveling throughout the country. Yet journalists embedded with American military forces in some of the more pacific parts of Iraq almost certainly have the opportunity to investigate and report on these sorts of human interest stories. Additionally, there are many experts on Middle Eastern affairs scattered throughout the various think tanks, colleges, and universities from which knowledge and insight could be drawn to offer more comprehensive analysis instead of interviews with the typical standard fare of punditry substituting for experienced analysis of comprehensive strategies for stabilizing Iraq.
Comprehensive journalism and analysis are also exceedingly deficient in covering legislative action and debate of the U.S. Congress, as well as rulings of the U.S. Supreme Court. Refusal to regularly disseminate political debate and legislative action or court rulings that will directly affect the American people represents a severe dereliction of the media’s duty to report and keep the public well-informed. Although cable channels such as CSPAN televise the daily legislative activities of the House of Representatives and Senate, these channels typically refrain from offering analysis and dissection of the legislative process or discussion of how particular bills or Supreme Court decisions will affect the public. For this reason, one might reasonably expect the news networks to devote their journalistic efforts to substantive reporting and analysis of Congressional activity and Supreme Court rulings, such as the renewal of the Patriot Act, appropriations for the Defense Budgeting and Labor HHS bills, or Supreme Court cases involving imminent domain, desegregation, or the right of habeas corpus. However, as of late, coverage of the Supreme Court remains minimal – superficial at best, while Congressional debate and hearings are limited to a few minutes of live broadcast followed by political speculation without substantive analysis of the issue.
However, broadcast media networks point to ratings and various studies to explain their programming choices – suggesting that it is the American people who prefer the sensationalist coverage as opposed to viewing newscasts with a wider scope and breadth of information presented. Advertisers and particular groups such as Mediascope, a non-profit media research and policy organization, contend that "market research suggests that stories of crime and violence increase newscasts' ratings." Yet, other independent studies have shown that the American public would much rather view quality programming as opposed to what the broadcast media perceives as preferable news coverage. The Project for Excellence in Journalism concluded that, "many of the conventional ideas about what works in TV news -- high story count, flashy production, emotion over substance, targeting -- are demonstrably wrong." Essentially, the cable broadcast stations are using a false premise as an excuse to continue to inundate the American public with sensationalist and deficient news coverage.
The result of this trend of delivering shallow and sensationalized coverage by the 24-hour news networks creates an overall lack of awareness and understanding of important issues and events by the majority of the American public. This failure to provide all pertinent information relating to the various issues and events that, to one degree or another, could affect the daily lives of the general public, presents a significant danger to the future viability of the U.S. for the obvious reason that in a representative democracy, it is the people who ultimately decide the future direction of the nation through their choice of elected officials at the ballot box. FOX, CNN, and MSNBC have a responsibility, as significant media outlets, to provide accurate and up-to-date news and in-depth analysis of significant -- and sometimes not so seemingly significant -- issues that the American people want and need to be aware of in order to understand what the federal government is doing on their behalf. Until this trend of sensationalized coverage and inadequate analysis of important events is replaced with wide-ranging dissemination of information and greater scrutiny of the key issues, the American people will never posses the power that comes from true knowledge and understanding to hold the nation’s leaders and judges accountable for their actions.
