I've stopped watching the news. I've stopped reading any sections of the newspaper other than the style section and the obits. I refuse to read anything that remotely resembles news on my Facebook feed. Why would a former journalism instructor fall to these depths? Prepare for a rant for which I apologize in advance.
Once upon a time, I could find the half fantasy, mostly inaccurate interpretations of newsworthy events in one limited section of the grocery store. I knew when I read the things sold in that place that most of it was completely unsupported nonsense or someone's biased opinion. I learned early that, if I wanted to know what really was going on, I needed to watch the newscast at 6 and 10 and read the state newspaper to get the details that didn't fit into the broadcasts. Sometimes, I even went so far as to seek out the information afforded by national news magazines. In-depth coverage from the carefully compiled information gathered by reporters with high standards always was available from these sources.
If George Moore (local television newscaster) said it, you could take it to the bank. It was clearly reported with good grammar, and all sides were presented so that you could draw your own conclusions about anything that had more than one possible angle.
Everyone knew that an occasional untruth or biased report slipped through, but it was reason for investigation and dismissal of the person who let the journalism profession down in such a way.
WHAT HAPPENED?
I first noticed the changes when the media found it necessary to present, after political speeches, an analysis of what the speakers were saying. I thought the main reason that we had "free" public education in in this country was to educate our citizens so they could participate in the various aspects of running the country based on the opinions THEY (not the news editors on television) formed after hearing such speeches. Perhaps I misunderstood either the intent of the education or the intent of the networks.
Then came the fascination of more and more of the population with the adventures and misadventures of the rich and famous. The scandal sheets moved to the mainstream publications section of the newsstands, and people began to want more and more detail to their snooping into the lives of politicians, entertainers, and (and this really makes me crazy) people who are famous for being famous. What does that even mean?
The need to fill time on some of the 3000 broadcast channels that are available since the advent of satellite television gave birth to the monster referred to as "reality television." The lack of reality is surpassed only by the people who believe it has anything to do with reality. It appears to be the brainchild of the old wrestling show promoters and a peeping Tom. I have tried more than once to at least watch one episode of any of them. I seldom make it to the first commercial. While I'm on that subject, what is wrong with the idiots who run the cameras on some shows? Someone steps into a fire and their pants go up in a blazing inferno, and the cameras keep right on going. Some kinds of reality are not mean for television.
At this point, you have to know who is paying for the information you are getting on the news in order to be able to factor that into what you decide is fact and what is opinion. One of the biggest problems in our country is that people actually think that their opinion is fact. Unfortunately, they also think that it is necessary for them to hate anyone who doesn't hold the same opinion. What happened to the idea of defending the right of a person to say what he thinks, even if you disagree with it?
More and more of the supposedly intelligent people I know are getting their opinions and their political candidates based on what someone else tells them they should think. What happened to thinkers and doers? They must be at home trying to find unbiased facts amid all the interpretive journalism available today.
I wish them luck.
