TV Journalism as Entertainment

As much as I disdain the nightly network news, I still find myself watching it by default while my wife and I have our evening cocktail and dinner. I don't know why I continue to subject myself to this media abuse, it's lack of substance aggravates no end. Often not for what they report but for what they neglect.

For example, several important still-ongoing stories have dropped out of the media consciousness. They had us trembling in fear over that radiation from the damaged Japanese nuclear plant was wafting over the continental US. As far as I know, the the problem persists. We also know nothing of what is going on in Iraq, and meager discussion of Afghanistan only resurfaced due to the killing of bin Laden. And in spite of record tornadoes, record heat, warming of the gulf, Global Climate Change is apparently a dead issue to the media, as are jobs, or the lack thereof.

On the other hand we are continually treated to the blather of Sarah Palin. She holds no political office... remember she QUIT her position as governor. Yet the media seems to be stumbling over each other thinking she has something significant to contribute to public discourse. The news described how the press was "chasing to keep up" with her latest bus tour - why? I would love to see the press ignore her, but then it's kind of like when there is a car wreck on the freeway... you simply can't NOT slow down and look.

I have always believed that the continual coverage of the Tea Party "movement" gave legitimacy to what would in the past (and higher journalistic standards) have been disregarded as the lunatic fringe and largely ignored. In Portland, "Hands Across Hawthorne" drew HUNDREDS of people to protest the attack of two homosexual men on the Hawthorne bridge; elsewhere in town, TEN people showed up for a Tea Party rally. Guess which stories received news coverage and which one ignored! I am not sure precisely when being stupid became in vogue.

Continual news coverage may even be harmful to one's health. One of my good friends was advised by his physician to limit his viewing of cable network news where every story is presented in "immediate crises" mode 24/7. He was having trouble sleeping at night.

I used to watch the CBS program "60 Minutes" regularly but I am seriously thinking of tuning in "America's Funniest Videos" during that time slot. Hmmm, I'm under enough stress already.

~~~
The following likely would never be produced in the US as it doesn't involve someone getting hit in the groin - leave it to the Brits to come up with a scathing critique of todays television journalism. Enjoy.

The health of journalism.

I picked up a “Time” magazine in the doctor’s office waiting room today. Remarkably it was a current issue; most waiting room magazines are, well… old. Anyway, the big story in “Time” was about John McCain’s health. More specifically, the story was an analysis of how John McCain’s health could affect his run for office. Several polls were cited in the article in order to assess public confidence in whether McCain was healthy enough to be president.

And what exactly was McCain’s serious health issue? Eight years ago he had a melanoma removed from his skin. It’s usually a five-minute procedure which is then treated with a band aid! Why his took five-hours is anybody’s guess – open heart surgery takes five hours. I’ll wager the reported got minutes and hours mixed up. Journalists often have trouble keeping their facts straight.

Yes I know… melanoma can be a deadly cancer if it is not treated. My wife had such an incident. In fact, her primary care physician misdiagnosed the spot on her arm as a harmless mole. As is becoming all too unsettlingly common, I again found my medial knowledge superior to that of many physicians, so we had a dermatologist remove the mole. The pathology report came back: malignant melanoma! (My wife doesn’t see that physician any more, by the way).

It really pains me when journalists are so bent on doing journalism that they create a story where there is none. And John McCain’s fitness to be commander-in-chief is in no way threatened or impaired by virtue of The Media crafting of a Health issue”. Now I can list a number of other reasons which, in my opinion, cause me to believe John McCain is a less than desirable choice to be president. But his having the foresight to have a “potentially” dangerous mole scratched off his skin is not one of them.

I understand that "Time" has magazines to sell. I also know that journalists need to write just as fish need to fly and birds need to swim. [Yes, I know what I said] But often there is no story there – and there is no issue with McCain’s fitness for the presidency here, at least, where his health is concerned.

Here is a story suggestion for “Time”, (or any other journalist out there, for that matter) - Do an article on how many Americans die each year of melanoma because they don’t have health coverage or the money to visit a dermatologist. Or would that require too much writing?