http://https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=LVZPylRyOUs&ab_channel=BrianRalph
(Jon Stewart, when asked about his opinion of the current state of 24 hour news networks)
Throughout the year, I would like to treat my civic posts almost as “diagnoses” of rather broad issues that I perceive as large influences in our current political climate, and try and flesh out these issues a bit more by holding them under a magnifying glass. The first issue that I’d like to address, and one that has been pretty prevalent for nearly two decades, is the idea of the 24/7 news cycle.
Imagine for a moment that I am a commentator, informing thousands about Joe Biden’s latest public statement. In my video/tweet/blog/whatever, I use a very real CNN article titled “Biden says Trump should no longer receive classified intelligence briefings”. I tell my audience that under Joe Biden’s administration, Donald Trump has not received any intelligence briefings, a privilege that ex-presidents enjoy. I tell them that Joe Biden said, word for word, that he doesn’t want Donald Trump to have these briefings because of his “erratic behavior unrelated to the insurrection.” I then proceed to tell my audience that this is simply another way that Joe Biden is attempting to undermine Donald Trump and the integrity of our government, and that his only public reason for doing so are political reasons that have never happened before.
Theoretically, besides opinionated language and speculation, everything in that statement is “truth”. The only issue is, if you actually read the entire article, it is revealed that Donald Trump has not requested any intelligence briefings to this point, but officials from the intelligence agency have stated publicly that they have many ways to formulate a presentation of their intelligence, and would present it to Donald Trump if any request were to come. This is also ignoring the larger quote from Biden, which further explains his reason as to not wanting Trump to receive intelligence (despite it just being his opinion), Biden saying “I just think that there is no need for him to have the — the intelligence briefings. What value is giving him an intelligence briefing? What impact does he have at all, other than the fact he might slip and say something?” You see, the above report wasn’t technically lying nor false, but it was dangerously misleading nonetheless.
I find this to be an issue with how most people consume news now, primarily through social media or on network/cable television. With social media, you could have people with potentially no credentials, no qualifications, and at times no public identity influencing the minds of thousands by interpreting their reality of the news. Half of the time, you would know more about the subject than they do by simply reading the article in full, something I am almost certain most people on twitter reposting headlines don’t do. Likewise, on cable television you have reporters simplifying the news to be as accessible and understandable to the vast amount of listeners possible, for it is their jobs to ensure the most amount of people possible tune in and consume their programs.
In my not-so-qualified opinion, both of these methods also suffer from the blessing and curse of 24/7 news, an issue that network television created in response to 9/11. As the entire nation looked upon these networks in terror in 2001, unable to tune away out of pure shock and fear, these television companies noticed a significant increase in profits. However, as the nation began to heal these profits began to dwindle, as the fortunate reality is that reality often does not have sensational nor dramatic issues every other week that glues people to their televisions. In the lack of these issues, networks began to forge their own sensations, needing to justify their reason to report on news and politics on all hours of the day, and needing ways to keep their audience intrigued. After 9/11, it was the wars raging in the middle east. During the wars in the middle east, it was the patriot act. From the patriot act we shifted to gun violence, from gun violence we shifted to elections, from elections we shifted to Obama wearing a tan suit (yes, that was an actual controversy), and while that is a gross oversimplification, I hope you get the point.
Politics shifted from something boring that middle aged men argued about after having too much to drink into a blood sport that teenagers that can’t even vote watched with passion. The internet shifted from being filled with stupid pictures of cats ands memes to baseless articles of conspiracy theories that people only read the headlines of and then regurgitate it to everyone they know. When looking at the rise of Donald Trump, when looking at the terrorist attack on the capitol, when looking at the current state of our country, it is hard to understand how exactly we got here. While that answer is too complicated to contribute to a single reason, there is no doubt that the institutions that shone a spotlight on the last 20 years while actively serving as soothsayers spelling doom might have had just a tiny, little bit to play in it all.
Here’s another class from Jon Stewart, made 4 days before I was even born. It’s interesting how his criticism still rings true.
This is such an important topic. In order to make the best decisions possible, we must see the truth and be rational. Although technology has allowed us to connect with news all the time, so many of them are biased. I think the media has definitely contributed to the tension between political parties and has encouraged divisiveness. It is so easy to believe whatever we see on social media especially if it already aligns with our original thoughts. It is also so easy to share them and spread them to our like-minded friends, which only strengthens our opinions even more. I think it is important for more sources to prioritize shining light on the truth rather than trying to create drama. I also think it is important to educate people on how to tell the difference between a reliable source and a biased one. We all must individually take responsibility for sorting through the endless amount of information that surrounds us because it is unlikely 24/7 news is going away anytime soon.
24/7 news networks are, as you said, a business driven by profit. It’s not right to force the media to not turn a profit since they still need to pay for expenses and such, but they should not be a business in the same sense that a hospital should not be a business. In a capitalist society, there’s the constant issue of needing to make more money than your competitors which, for news networks, means breaking the news faster and in a more sensationalist sense than ever before. Controversies don’t pop up every week which means one week might see a dip in profits. News outlets have turned to just saying any nonsense that will make them a quick buck, and I would bet that they hire the most opinionated news anchors that they can find just to appeal to their audience. The most obvious example I can think of is Tucker Carlson from Fox News, but CNN’s Anderson Cooper isn’t immune to saying things that are clearly written to attract attention, good or bad. It doesn’t matter since views are views, and it’ll make them money.
I definitely think that this is something to be talked about that people don’t really think about as much. News channels definitely allow us to be informed a lot through the use of technology compared to reading newspapers or just not having a source of news but there is definitely a downside to this. I agree that the media has definitely created a bigger political divide and even just made the other side seem uneducated or just blatantly ridiculous. It truly is almost like a business in a sense where whichever party gives more money to air their content from time to time then that is what is going to get aired and be seen by more people. This then leads to people watching the news with an already biased perspective and completely misunderstand the other side because of the news sources that they are watching from.