The Basic Problem With the Media

It has become painfully apparent over the past 30 or so years, but especially in the last 20, that the electronic news business has lost whatever objectivity it might once have had, and has simply become a ratings- and revenue-driven business. This is fine for most of show business but, like it or not, most Americans (and I'm not talking about those who really keep up on current events, but rather those who just watch the TV news) get their news from TV. Since it is TV, advertising is a (perhaps the) major source of revenue and, since advertisers pay based upon the ratings a show receives, increased ratings become the goal of the news operation.

Ratings are enhanced by being first with the information (accuracy is secondary) and having physically attractive news readers (aka Anchors) and reporters. The evidence is overwhelming that physical attractiveness and sonorous voice are the #1 and 2 criteria TV news requires to be "on air". This results in a heavy skew toward younger "talent" since (and I know I'm going to get in trouble for stating the obvious) most people, in general, find younger people more attractive than older ones. I'm sorry, but it's true and you know it.

Again, as a general proposition, younger people simply have had less life experience than older ones and generally know less which, I am convinced, is the root cause behind their generally liberal slant. This, of course, is why college campuses tend to be such liberal places -- you've got a huge population of young people with simply no life experience and very little understanding of the world. A lot of things in life seem soluble (poverty, war, crime, etc) to those without a lot of general knowledge to understand beyond what they see. "If we [that would be the government] just give poor people a minimum standard of living, if we just would not become involved in wars, if we just would try to understand why criminals do what they do and get them help, just give everyone free health insurance, these problems would go away." See my forthcoming article on Abe Maslow for the sociology of this.

But back to the media: I don't think it's subject to debate that the media in general have a heavy liberal slant, and largely for the above reasons, in my opinion. They, of course, don't think so because a) they socialize with each other and it's all they see, so it's "middle of the road" to them, b) the few conservatives that slip thru have learned to keep their heads down, and c) it's not their self-interest to admit their liberalism, even if they did recognize it, as it calls into question the validity of their product. One recent survey found that 83% of the "mainstream media" identified themselves as Democrats. This cannot be by chance.

I've been kind of a news junkie since high school (45 years ago), and have been increasingly distressed by the general naivete and lack of general knowledge of those who give the news on TV -- they simply don't seem to have any general understanding of almost any subject they are reporting on. They mispronounce common names and places and generally don't seem to have the least understanding of the background on any of the stories they report, other than what might be currently in the news. There are, of course, exceptions -- the late Hal Fishman in LA stands out -- and I'm sure there are others, but they are just that -- the rare exception.

Hal Fishman -- a clear example of hired for brains, not looks (note Supermarine Spitfire in background)

I draw these conclusions, by the way, from their lack of knowledge on subjects I happen to know something about (military history, music, and real estate), and assume that that ignorance must extend across the rest of what they report. I really do think the primary reason is that outlined above. So why does this matter?

Let's take the Iraq War as a prominent, recent example: wouldn't you think that some general knowledge of the subject being reported on, especially one as important as the Iraq War, might rate a reporter with some understanding of the military going in? After all, they seem to find a doctor to report on medical matters, a "meteorologist" to do the weather, etc, but the media apparently could not find one reporter to send to Iraq who had ever been in the military, or had the least understanding of it or military history, past conflicts, etc, that would allow him to provide the slightest context for what he was reporting. This is not surprising, given that the type of person who would enroll in J-school is about as diametrically opposite from one who would enlist in the military as it is possible to imagine.

With no other source, the American public is forced to see (and judge) the war thru the eyes young reporters starting at the very bottom of the learning curve (or older ones starting there), reporters who have no idea what they're looking at, no idea whether what they just witnessed is a major engagement or a minor skirmish, no understanding of what responsibility the "expert" they interview has (was that a colonel or a corporal? Not that the reporter would know the difference), no understanding of how casualties, tactics, civilian casualties, or pretty much anything else compares to previous wars. To someone who has never seen warfare, it's horrible beyond anything in their life experience -- especially some coddled young snot fresh out of some Ivy League journalism school. Warfare is, indeed, terrible, but it's a fact of human existence. The repeated characterizations of this particular War as "costly" and with "many casualties" are disproved by historical comparisons to other wars which, as noted above, are well beyond the knowledge of these reporters.

So the perception of the Iraq War, molded as it was by reporters wholly unqualified to report on it, is a negative one. What a surprise. Objectively, and leaving aside for a moment the undebatable issue of whether or not the War was justified, this was the least costly war in US history in terms of US lives lost per day, easily surpassing the previous standard, the Spanish American War.

On a related note (and I say this as a Marine Corps veteran), the insistence of most of the media (and especially talk show hosts, including conservative ones) on referring to anyone who serves in the military as a "hero" is distressing, and demeans the valor of those whose deeds were truly heroic. While I respect the heck out of anyone who has served in the military, there is a huge leap between simply being in the military and "hero", as anyone who has "served" would tell you. I have no doubt that the military is a big mystery to most reporters and talk show hosts, which adds to their aura in reporters' eyes. Guys like John Basilone, Col Maurice Holmes, and Jackson Pharris were heroes. If you're in the media, look them up.

I think I understand at least part of what's behind it: most of the media today cut their teeth when service in the military was either very unfashionable or voluntary, and almost none of them have seen the inside of a military uniform. Given the outstanding performance of the US military in recent wars, and the graphic depictions of what they endure now being brought to us courtesy of new technology and that very media, I believe there is an underlying guilt in the media at not having served when it was "their time"; so they attempt to atone by obsequiously conferring the title "hero" upon anyone who actually served. All it does in the mind of anyone familiar with the military is expose the reporter's ignorance of the subject. So please don't refer to me as a "hero". Anyone familiar with my time in the Corps will know I was anything but.