Un-breaking the news

In a digital age, news broadcast information is in favor of entertainment

Eric Boose / Opinion Editor / The USD Vista

When the United States was still only a fledgling country, Thomas Jefferson wrote, “wherever the people are well informed they can be trusted with their own government.” Essentially, Jefferson says that a well-informed electorate is necessary in a democracy. In the modern era, the role of keeping voters informed has fallen squarely on the shoulders of journalists. For decades, the duty of journalists has been to seek out the truth and inform the people of it. The news has aspired to provide voters relevant information so that their choices will be based on a consideration of the facts, not just on a whim. 

For the most part, journalists have done just that. The news, whether in print, on the radio, or on TV, has provided voters with information they need to know. However, it could be done better. In an increasingly digital era where information is available at the push of a button, newspapers and radio news broadcasts have struggled to stay relevant. With its visual storytelling and short, conversational reports, TV news has managed to maintain relevance better than its print and radio counterparts. The struggle that TV news faces is far more complex.

This is not to say that TV news is inherently bad. It is not. In fact, it would be easy to look at TV news and say that there is little to nothing wrong with it. However, for someone with a strong, idealistic view of what journalism can and should be, TV news is a bit of a letdown. 

There is such a scramble to have the story first that broadcasters are content to tell only the beginning of a story first rather than to wait and tell the whole story. However, to anyone unaware that breaking news is only the tip of the iceberg, that report is the whole story, and they are free to ignore any intricacies that may be revealed later. 

Equally problematic, once the story breaks, the anchors are stuck. They have to find a way to keep people’s attention while their producers and reporters hurriedly track down more details. So, while journalists work behind the scenes to unveil the rest of the story, viewers are treated to the opinions of an “expert” or a panel of “experts.” Despite not knowing what the whole story is, people are more than happy to give their opinion on the story. That opinion is rarely moderate. There would be no point in bringing on a so-called “expert” just for them to say that we should wait to get more details before forming opinions. That does not keep people’s attention.

As social media became increasingly present in our lives, the news — TV news especially — seems to have become more focused on generating sound bites than stories. Fiery quotes and heated arguments make the rounds on social media quicker than an anchor reading the news. So, those panels of “experts” brought in to discuss the sparse details of a still-developing story become arguments; some more civil than others. And while everyone has a right to disagree with anyone else, and while discourse and debate are keys to making progress, they are not inherently news. 

Now, none of this is the fault of journalists themselves. TV news exists in a different historical context than newspapers and radio. In the late 1940s, William Paley and David Sarnoff, two pioneers of broadcast journalism, made a deal with Congress and the Federal Communications Commission (FCC). Essentially, the deal was that broadcast networks like Paley’s CBS could use taxpayer-owned airwaves on one condition: one hour, every night, would be dedicated to informational broadcasting. That informational broadcasting is better known as the evening news. 

In that deal, Congress made one crucial error. There was nothing prohibiting paid advertisement during the evening news. In defense of Congress, it would be unfair to expect them to foresee the power of television to deliver advertisers to consumers. However, had such a prohibition been included, American broadcast journalism would be changed for the better. 

Instead, news broadcasts are expected to turn their own profit. This is the root of the issues with TV news. I should clarify that as a general rule, these issues affect local news broadcasts more than national ones. Local news broadcasters were the first to shift toward a more entertaining style of doing the news, and they were rewarded with an increase in advertising dollars. National news broadcasts were quick to follow local stations’ leads, and the news changed from informational broadcasting to entertaining information.

By having to turn their own profit, news producers are in the same business as the producers of “The Bachelor” — entertainment. Broadcast journalists have to somehow deliver the news in a way that keeps as many people watching as possible. Therefore, their broadcast needs to be as entertaining, dramatic, exciting, heartwarming, etc. as whatever else is on. 

Under that burden, news broadcasters are forced to let ratings drive content. In order to keep ratings up and people watching, the nightly news has become the types of broadcasts we see today. The “news” is not necessarily the crucial information voters need to make an informed decision, but instead the stories that will get people to tune in. News broadcasters race to break a story without knowing what the story is and give debate more screen time than facts. While these broadcasts may entertain viewers, they under-achieve in their duty to create a well-informed electorate.

With a country so polarized that party affiliation can influence a person’s definition of what counts as a fact, fundamentally solid, unquestionably factual  journalism is of utmost importance. If we are truly going to be a well-informed electorate, we need news broadcasts which broadcast the news in the best way possible, and we do not have those right now. 

Removing advertising from the nightly news, whether through a decision of the broadcasters themselves or through an act of Congress, is a step that must be taken as soon as possible. For 23 hours of the day, broadcasters should focus on turning a profit, but for one hour a night, they should work for the voters.

I have no doubt that if ratings did not drive content, the content of nightly newscasts on any channel would noticeably change. I believe we would see stories reported fully, not just a quick breaking news update followed by a panel debate. I do not know if more people would watch this new kind of broadcast, but I know the people who watch it would be better for doing so.