Broadcast media’s superficiality and unchecked power to sway public opinion and change lives is just plain dangerous

Last week, the only major broadcast media story featured every day was Don Imus’ racist comments, his fall out and eventual downfall. Clearly, this type of coverage created a ground swell of opinions and emotions that ultimately brought about a tidal wave of negativity towards Imus that could not be stopped.  Ordinarily, this story would still be gaining mileage in most broadcast media outlets. But, another, bigger and certainly more devastating story (the Virginia Tech massacre) took center stage. So, how much coverage has the Imus debacle received since Monday? It’s almost non existent.

Imagine for a second if we could rewrite history and instead of the VT Tech crisis happening this week, it actually took place on the same day that Imus made those infamous remarks? Would Imus’ negative comments have even received a moderate amount of coverage in the broadcast world if it had to compete with a story about 32 people murdered on a college campus? I doubt it. And, if broadcast media covered Imus in a minimal way, would the fire have been fueled that allowed Al Sharpton & Co. to create such a wave of negativity that pushed advertisers to abandon Imus and ultimately lead to his dismissal at NBC and CBS?

I think not.

I am not an advocate for Don Imus, nor do I wish that the VT Tech crisis happened last week. My point is that we as public citizens do not create sustainable national stories, the broadcast media do and then they decide how long each individual story should remain front and center in our lives. They decide what is worth covering based on the hottest, most sensationalistic crisis or controversy of the week. They latch on to a story that they believe will capture eyeballs and then analyze and frame it to death until the next “big” story comes along.

Is the Don Imus story any less newsworthy this week than last? That’s really an interesting question…because it shouldn’t be. But, based on the whim of the broadcast world, it is. So, Don Imus’ fate was essentially in the hands of the superficial nature of broadcasters who only provide the American people with one story because they believe we don’t have the intellectual bandwith to care or synthesize anything more.

This is not new, but it is still a very scary proposition. It’s frightening because broadcast media flock to controversy the way sheep travel in a herd. Combine this with need to supply constant information in today’s 24/7 transparent news cycle and it creates an atmosphere where a complete feeding frenzy can occur once the big story is out there. This frenzy goes way beyond media when opinions shaped through the broadcast media world are then ignited through consumer generated content on the Internet. In the end, fortunes, careers and lives have been made or destroyed simply based on the superficial nature and haphazard luck of timing and whether another story is juicier, or not.

The very DNA behind broadcast media organizations has created this destruction and it will only get worse. These organizations have razor thin research departments whose main task is to copy the news of print journalists who may (or may not) have gotten the story right. Because of their thirst for controversy, they rarely provide a balanced argument or view on any particular controversy (the week of Imus’ news coverage is a great example of this), thus leading to a mountain of irresponsibility with an impact that cannot even be measured.

Comments

[WithClue]

Broken News!

Sex sells: 24/7 Anna Nicole
Race controversy sells: 24/7 Imus
Sex and Race sell: 24/7 Duke three
Sensationalism sells: Jerry Springer, Bill O'Reily and their respective progeny.
Crisis sells: 9/11, Iraq, Iran, VA Tech. etc.

The common denominator? $$$$$$

The news used to be a loss leader in network programming. That is, the costs associated with journalism, investigative reporting and appropriate copy were higher than the revenue generated by the news program. Network news departments once operated independently of network entertainment programming. Now? The "News" serves one and only one purpose--revenue. News is now Katie Couric "infotainment." In 1986 Reagan began the decline by eliminating the “fairness doctrine” and Clinton 1997 drove the stake into News’ heart by installing the “telecommunications act.”

"The very DNA behind broadcast media organizations has created this destruction and it will only get worse." I agree with your premise Ed but I disagree your purported nexus of the problem. Corporate interests and commerce and not controversy have engendered the current crisis.

[Steve Zweig]

I think that the media is more a mirror than a lantern; it reflects what people want to see, rather than shedding its own light.

Media companies, whether broadcast, print, or internet, make money by giving people what they want. The reading/viewing/surfing public wants to read about Anna Nicole Smith, tempest-in-teapots involving overpaid celebrities, sex scandels, and tragegies. If the public didn't watch this fare, then media couldn't sell advertising on it and wouldn't show it.

There's a reason that public TV begs for handouts to keep running while celebrity gossip can be found 24/7 on TV and the web and at the supermarket checkout aisle.

Is it the job of the media to try to force people to pay attention to serious discussions of meaningful issues? Or like any other for-profit business, whether it's making clothes or hamburgers or serving up the nightly news, do they just try to give people what they manifestly want and will pay for?

Don't blame the mirror because the reflection is ugly.

[Trish]

Amen. This type of media coverage has actually just been pissing me off lately. I really couldn't care less and I'm tired of the media creating what they want people to think. I have never listened to NPR in my life - but with a 50 minute one way commute each day it has become a bit of a guiding light and even then they did focus a bit too much on Imus.