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.