The Problem with 24-Hour News

Our country has become increasingly polarized over the past decade.  While there are many reasons why this may be the case, one reason has not much been discussed and needs to be examined:  the impact of 24-hour news channels.

Before CNN, FoxNews, and MSNBC, we got our news in highly condensed doses.  A half-hour a night, plus an hour of interviews on Sunday mornings.  By necessity—as well as professional standards—the news tended to be factual:  What happened, to whom, when, why.   Today, however, with the need to fill time on 24-hour news channels, the facts tend to be presented not as an end in itself, but as an introduction to an “expert” opinion roundtable or, even worse, a game of tag between two opposing points of view (often a professional Democratic strategist versus a professional Republican strategist).  It helps fill the time between commercials.  However, the viewer goes away not better informed about the core issues, but instead better informed about the radical positions being taken around the issue.  The result:  we have lost the centrist perspective in our understanding of how to approach major problems.

It has become so routine in the 24-hour news channels that they no longer make a distinction between the presentation of “news” and “discussion” or “commentary.”  And, rarely is there a true “analysis” conducted by objective and knowledgeable experts who are not already committed to a political viewpoint.  It is time for consumers of news to hold news programs to their own standards. 

The Society for Professional Journalists has published standards (http://www.spj.org/ethicscode.asp)  that are a good starting point.  Beyond that, I would argue that networks need to clearly distinguish between journalism and commentary.  Neither Chris Matthews nor Rush Limbaugh function as journalists on their regular programs, for instance.  They are “commentators” and their programs should be clearly marked as such, given that they are broadcast on what are otherwise promoted as “news” channels.  In turn, those programs that are meant to be journalistic “news” programs should avoid point-counterpoint discussions of issues by professional partisans.  Instead, they should, when needed, bring in objective professionals who can clarify the facts, rather than share opinions.  

The result would be that we see fewer politicians and other professionals politicos on the air voicing their partisan positions EXCEPT when the public is alerted that the program is one about opinion rather than a news program.

Perhaps then, the general public can be better informed about the decisions that their elected representatives are (or are not) making on their behalf.

Richard Alley and James Kasting: Global Warming

The following editorial by Richard Alley and James Kasting makes a solid case that we need to begin planning NOW in order to avoid the extreme changes that will otherwise come about due to global warming.   They use the analogy of planning for retirement:  it can be disastrous if we start too late. 

The printed version in the Centre Daily Times included a graph that illustrates how average world temperaturs have increased dramatically since the 1980s.  I recall the summer of 1988, when global warming became apparent for the first time to most of the public.   For my generation, 1980 is not very far away, but it is a generation ago.  We've lost a full generation in planning to avoid global warming.  This fall, hurricane Sandy demonstrated what global warming can mean to our highly populated coastal cities.  We are losing time and, while we dally, the energy industry is pushing us toward fracking to get more fossil fuel rather than investing in green energy.

One implication is that we can no longer let short-term profit-seeking interests dominate policy discussions about what is becoming a public safety issue.  Let's get the oil companies out of the policy room and demand that our elected officials do their job with our interests--not private interests--in mind. 

We have already lost a generation.  Let's be sure our grandchildren do not look back on us with dismay over our selfishness.
 
We must move toward a cleaner environment | Opinion | CentreDaily.com

David Remnick: Obama and Global Warming : The New Yorker

This column by David Remnick in The New Yorker should be required reading.  It is also a reminder that we cannot afford to be lulled by the superficiality of today's 24-hour news cycle.  We need to take the time to think more deeply about what are, in fact, the issues that should drive our national policies and our passions in the coming weeks and months.  

David Remnick: Obama and Global Warming : The New Yorker