Miss watching the news??? Me, too!
September 2008

Miss watching the news lately? Me, too! I grew up watching the news a lot and I could pretty much depend on getting reports by networks who worked hard to be objective. That was the standard unless you were the “National Inquirer”. Over the past few years though I’ve noticed that “real” news is fast disappearing, especially with the major networks we could depend upon news to be “fair and balanced”. Instead what has evolved is news that is more akin to the “reality” genre of television than journalism. It’s vicious, ugly, demeaning and meant to degrade. They also take sides. It's evident that it's about ratings and hidden agendas…especially political agendas. I’m afraid taking in the news has been reduced to sitting in front of the boob tube and watching a pretty face without any intellectual substance. It’s no longer the news but downgraded to entertainment.

I don’t know about you, but I’ve never watched the news for entertainment. I watch the news for information and there was a time (not too far past) when journalists did a really, really good job…at their job. What I see now is making me nervous, even fearful.

News used to be objective. When you heard the news you couldn’t tell if the person (i.e. news affiliate) was for or against something or someone. Now the news has evolved into commentary, not the obvious kind of commentary like the journalists who openly admit and market themselves as commentators but just the regular evening news broadcasts who have gone the way of reality TV.

Think I’m wrong? Without telling you which candidate I’m referring to here are two captions that flew across my TV screen recently, sans the name of the presidential candidate and the network. Caption 1: “Candidate A is courting the Hispanic vote. Captain 2: ”Candidate B is pandering for the Hispanic vote.” Big deal you say? It’s just two little words. It is a big deal because I bet you can tell me who was Candidate A and who was Candidate B without me telling you…and I like the other guy I’m not voting for. Two little verbs are the only difference between the two statements and those two little words mean something entirely different, but don’t take my word for it…pull out your Funk and Wagnalls, Merriam-Webster or Oxford Dictionary.

To Court – to give conduct or attention intended to win favor or dispel hostility, i.e. Homage. (Merriam-Webster)

To Pander- to cater to or exploit the weaknesses of others, i.e. Pimp (Merriam-Webster)

What I do know is that we are coming close to losing the right to make informed decisions on our own. You may think I'm over-reacting, that the difference is small but the subtly of the two words is not as innocuous as it may seem. Sort of like seduction that reels you in a little at a time.

What worries me most is that we stand to lose one of our most precious rights, the right to freedom of speech. If the news becomes filtered by political agendas and ratings then are they really any different than the Taliban, al Qaeda or a communist regime. We may not shoot anyone who dares to disagree or lock them away but we are still not allowed to disagree because we are only being shown one side…the side the media wants us to see. There is a reason our forefathers fought for the right to voice their concerns and were willing to put their differences out there for everyone to examine. It was the only way to truly be free. Are we losing sight of that?

Thomas Jefferson, one of our country’s greatest proponents of free speech, fought hard for that right even though he would have to battle his own demons with the press while running for and serving in office. Hard as it was for him to abide the things said of him in newspapers, he wasn’t willing to subjugate the privilege of a free press for anyone, not even himself.

In an effort to stifle criticism against the administration the “Alien and Sedition Act of 1798” was enacted to prohibit the publication of "false, scandalous, and malicious writing or writings against the government of the United States, or either house of the Congress of the United States, or the President of the United States, with intent to defame . . . or to bring them . . . into contempt or disrepute; or to excite against them . . . hatred of the good people of the United States…"

There was a reason many of the original supporters of the “Alien and Sedition Act of 1798” never reinstated the act after it expired. Not only was it probably unconstitutional (it was never ruled on by the Supreme Court) but the framers of the constitution realized the right to free speech and a free press should cut both ways and not just for the political party in power. It is what keeps us at our best.

We need to hear all sides without prejudice and malice but to hear all sides it must be reported without prejudice and malice. I’m not seeing that. What I’m hearing are political endorsements.

Yeah! I really miss the watching the news!