the shamptonian institute

I’m going to contend that the following positions do not equate to a journalist in the academic/accredited sense: Washington Correspondent, Commentator, Host, Moderator, News Anchor, Political Advisor/Analyst.

The questions posed to the candidates at the PA. debate were in poor taste, and a disgrace to Edward R. Murrow. They were delivered in a predominantly derogatory tone and the all-too-familiar cadence of modern broadcast television news.

I think we’ve grown tired of the ‘pitting them against one another’ bit. I’d prefer to hear what the candidates have to say regarding their plans for helping America. Isn’t that what we all want? To help America? I don’t think these questions are going to help families still struggling and living in FEMA trailers in New Orleans, but hey, maybe I’m wrong. Use airtime to inspire people, not gorge on trashy tabloid trivialities.

The first question was about who would be number two on the ticket and i’ll only say that my advice to both candidates is that I expect either one of them to be more than happy to have the honor of being vice-president. Hey, they both (I hope) would have a better job of restoring integrity and the public’s faith in the senate and congress.

And then later came the most infamous, inane question of the debate; what I believe we will be seeing replays of for years to come, when arguments against the corrosive effect of broadcast ‘news entertainment’ are levied; ”Do you think Rev. Wright loves America more than you?“

Seriously? Seriously?! You won’t find better political satire on ‘The Family Guy’ or ‘The Daily Show’

Are the ‘hosts’ of that show qualified journalists who’ve read and understand the SPJ Code of Ethics? Lest we forget, a qualified journalist a TV news anchor does not make. This is why I find it disappointing when programs, in this case hosted by Charles G. and George S., promulgate low-brow television ‘news entertainment’ that is divisive and corrosive in nature.

TV news comes in a variety of sizes. Two of the most recently popular in modern times are the data grazers/infographic enthusiasts/media accountants, giving you data and ample miscellany facts. Then, mostly on cable news, you have speculators/spinsters, pontificating about, in most cases, the salacious scandal of the day, to increase ratings and viewership. Clamoring for attention to accomplish these last two objectives has degraded the integrity of modern journalism. It leads me to what I argue are the three main components of late 20th century/early 21st century (1950-now) network broadcast news; 1.) Cadence 2.) Format/Schedule 3.) Sensationalism.

Some broadcasters may not realize the strong effect of their actions; how the choice of wording and the delivery of a sentence carries enough weight and purpose to reshape thought and interpretation, to reinforce myths and stereotypes, to corrode civic discourse or inspire it, and to influence, validate and strengthen public perceptions and belief systems.

Most broadcast network affiliate news stations employ show producers; they write the copy that goes in the teleprompter. There is usually one for every show; so for instance, if where you live, the local station has a morning or noon show, then a 5, 6 and 11pm newscast, there would be one person for each of those shows who handles the copy for the main anchors. It may or may not be a requirement to have a degree in journalism for this position.

For the most part, they’re people like you and me. They get up, go to work, come home, and are generally good souls. But in the case of broadcast news, they are more than likely under tight deadlines, where innocently-written, haphazard sentences have a greater chance of making their way to to the lips of the person reading the local news on your TV. But don’t forget, they’re also reading to millions of others, too; mass communication in a familiar, hypnotic cadence that carries the weight of ‘authority’ and ‘fact’ to shape or influence how people perceive.

Analysts, commentators, hosts, reporters; they often cite ‘the media’. However, none cite specific references. Most often they refer to the media in the plural form. It may have been an article or headline they read in the daily paper that morning. So a subtle semantic difference changes the meaning of the statement and its impact when used in the context of mass communications, grabbing your attention and validating the notion of ‘the media’ as a collective entity with a united mission and purpose. TV and online writers need to be more cognizant of this fact, and cite sources when they use the term ‘the media’.

Tim Robbins recently gave a keynote address at the NAB convention (National Association of Broadcasters). While I wholeheartedly believe in the ‘corrosive effect’ that broadcast news has on the public, I felt he was a bit narrow in his views and at times overly dramatic.

However, he was absurdly correct in asserting broadcasters’ power to effect change. However the ‘leaders’ to whom he was pointedly levying his criticisms, weren’t in the ballroom; they don’t attend NAB. C’mon Tim! They’re out on the golf course, or in bar at the country club! It’s the rest of us in the industry, who agree with his views, but have little power to change the status quo, who were there to hear him. (note: I was not there, but listened to the speech on Adage)

This commentary is part of a larger essay on modern broadcast news and will be made available later this year.