Jan
23
Televised Persuasion
Filed Under Television
Alert the media. Rather, do not alert the media. For the first time in recorded history, I am the party in the house who is tired of television. I’m full up with news and political punditry. Uncle. I can’t take it any longer.
The combination of the ongoing WGA strike and highly competitive candidate showdowns for both parties swirl around like high and low pressure systems, giving us thunderheads of political commentary. With occasional breaks for Britney Spears gossip. It’s good for our country to have a dialogue about our next leaders. I like to see an involved society, citizens who finally understand that everyone plays a part in the country’s future. But I can’t help but think we are being tricked. Are networks filling the airwaves with political news just because there is nothing else on television? Is the average American truly gripped by the political primaries, or is this hype fabricated?
A person should keep tabs on what our leaders are up to. This is our collective responsibility. I’ve enjoyed watching the political debates. It’s fun to see how these folks react under pressure, to see when they are addressing an issue or just blowing a line a bull in hopes everyone will be fooled. One could devise an intricate drinking game around these debates. But after each debate, we get five days of non-stop commentary. And not just the Sunday morning political shows. People argue on The View. Anchors on the Today show attack candidates via satellite. And then rush off discuss hot new kitchen gadgets.
Little Known Fact: Tim Russert has slept 14 in hours in the past two months. You can see the fatigue in his hair.
I want to believe that the increased news attention to the primaries this year is truly due to citizen concern. But would the attention be the same if there were alternatives on TV? What if the WGA were not on strike? The increased attention isn’t just bugging me, it’s making room for more commentary by the talking heads.
What creeps me out in all of this is that the news outlets are not simply reporting, they are influencing. Each offhand remark, stammer in a debate, becomes newsworthy if the media can create a story out of it. We are not able to simply listen to the candidates and form our own opinions. We have to be lead through the decision-making process by an ever-present news ticker.
You can create drama out of anything by removing the context. How do you think they make The Real World?
If the news machine were benevolent, we should be able to cite the journalistic code of ethics and feel safe that the audience is not being manipulated. But news outlets are run by networks who exist to make money. Through advertising. And how better to keep viewers glued to their sets than to build drama, construct storylines? Maybe we aren’t being lied to directly, but there is clearly a priority in news coverage to get the viewers to return. Even if the media does not intend to lead the populace, each decision to analyze Quote A instead of Quote B has its impacts.
For the conspiracy theorists, I’ll go one better: These networks are all owned by giant corporations who are concerned with political leadership. And advertising sales.
The answer? Pay attention. And pay attention to whom you are paying attention.
I guess I could watch something else. Did you know Scott Baio is 46 and pregnant?
Comments
Leave a Reply
-
Categories
-
Archives
-
My Photos
-
-
