I grew up in a major northeastern city that had a proliferation of daily newspapers and nationally syndicated TV news programs. Each TV station boasted a well-known anchorperson that generally represented the political and moral attitude of the station’s management or ownership. Many years before the advent of cable TV and 24-hour news programming, the average person developed a large portion of their political views from the media. Everyone had their favorite news anchor and columnists. We assumed that their reporting was generally accurate and unbiased. 

In the pre-cable TV years, no one was familiar with the term “spin” as it’s applied today to the media. People were not naïve in the “old days.” The late 60s and 70s were a time of great political unrest due to the Vietnam War and “Nixon’s Watergate.” Everyone had an opinion about the war and “dirty politics” as practiced by both national parties. 

Many of our opinions were fashioned, or at least strongly influenced, by what we read each morning or saw on TV every evening. Most of the TV news people were supposed to summarize the major events of the day and explain them to the viewing audience.  Most American households subscribed to a daily newspaper and followed local and national events through the eyes and ears of their favorite columnists. Sure, we knew who was a Democrat or Republican and expected some biased reporting. But, they were not supposed to misrepresent the facts in order to sell a certain political theory or message.  Politicians know which reporter to leak information to in order to make sure that their message is properly positioned. Most readers know when a “sales pitch” is coming and articles were slanted in favor of a certain political cause or party. We expected some degree of bias but also accepted integrity of the facts as they were presented.

In those days, the focus of the media was primarily informing the public about the news and events of the day and letting the circulation department worry about advertising revenue. In television, it was the evening syndicated shows that generated a station’s operating budget, not the newsroom. We expected the news people to present honest facts and opinions that we, the viewers, could understand and embrace. News reporting was not supposed to be entertainment.

I’m not sure exactly when this situation changed. My guess is that Ted Turner’s 24-hour CNN network had a lot to do with cable television’s emphasis on news as an entertainment medium. No one thought that CNN would be a huge success or that the viewing public would be excited about 24- hours news. This endeavor created an entirely new aspect of news reporting and access to major events as they took place. CNN capitalized on the Internet, cable TV and live feeds from reporters in the field via satellite transmissions. All of a sudden, the news anchor became the TV network’s biggest celebrities and helped attract an expanded viewing audience. More viewers meant an increase in advertising revenue and greater profits. 

Instead of relying on the daily paper for our dose of the news, we could tune into a cable station and listen to our favorite newsperson summarize the events of the day. By the early 90s, we had numerous 24-hour news shows to choose from to get our information.  Newspaper circulation did not diminish, but they had to compete with real-time, live news that the consumer could get days before the print media could release a story. Now the scoop of the day was shown live on television and the newspaper columnists were relegated to re-reporting what was already public information.

Politicians now play to the TV and make sure that a cable station reports their message that either shares their views or embraces their party’s message. The cable news stations argue that their reporting is fair and unbiased in order to maintain their journalistic integrity. In my estimation, this is not an accurate representation, regardless of what they tell the public. Look at all of the books written by television news personalities that espouse specific political views and try to assume that this bias does not influence their reporting. I don’t buy this message – at all.

Young kids today are overwhelmed by a massive amount of information that is aimed at them from the print media, cable TV and the Internet. The Internet has created an entirely new media outlet that seeks to “one up” even the cable news stations. As a result, too many kids are not interested in reading books or newspapers when their cell phones are equipped with Internet access and they can listen to the news. My concern is, “Who do they listen to and how accurate is the information?” 

I’m not surprised that during the past year several media executives and reporters were fired for reporting news that was either unsubstantiated or fabricated. They knew that news reporting has transcended from information gathering to entertainment. The more tantalizing the news, the more readers or viewers will use a particular service. It’s a ratings game today. What is reported as “fact” may ultimately be more accurately portrayed as an opinion.

I’m not surprised by these events. Communication in all forms has become so sophisticated today that consumers expect their information to be instantaneous. Just add water, microwave for 30 seconds, and here’s toady’s headlines! It worries me that the media has such a tremendous influence on consumer attitudes and opinions today, and we’re not questioning the authenticity of the information blaring at us 24/7. Who’s monitoring the media? We are. Each of us has to assume some responsibility for determining if what we read, hear or view is an accurate representation of the facts. Parents, teachers, church leaders and members of the clergy have an obligation to instruct their listeners on what is happening in the world today as it pertains to their respective constituents. This is not an easy task. We need to help each other educate and inform our audiences so that they can make intelligent and informed decisions.