(published 2/11/00)
                       No real news is no good news
                         by Mischa Gelman

     The media often gets criticized for being overly sensational -
certainly a valid complaint, but hardly the major problem with how things
get reported today. What bothers me more is the soft news explosion - the
pushing of puff pieces over serious stories. If you were to determine the
important issues from watching many "news" programs, you would rank the
life of Ricky Martin as far more important than 17 years of slavery, civil
war and religious persecution in the Sudan. The latest fad diet is more
important than anti-union harassing that seeks to deprive working families
of any real quality of life. Pokemon is more of a pressing concern to
America than homelessness. After all, what should we focus on?  Death,
poverty and oppression? Or the lifestyles of the rich and famous and the
latest marketeering crazes?
    We are already seeing this in the coverage of the presidential race.
Watch how much serious discussion is given to the ideas of an Alan Keyes,
Ralph Nader, John Hagelin or other "minor" candidate. Issues are rarely
discussed, as the press favors a "horse race" approach where winning and
losing are seen as the only thing. We rarely get to hear the words of the
candidates (especially those not among the big four selected by the media)
- how can we make an informed vote if we aren't informed of what the
candidates think? The average sound bite 12 years ago was not even 10
seconds - and it has since decreased. Veteran anchorman Walter Cronkite
has written, "What an indictment it is of today's abridged reporting that
we can consider the days of forty-two-second sound bites the golden age of
rational political argument."
    We are seeing the change as well in what is deemed to be news. A
Dateline NBC, the People Magazine of television (which in fact has even
done stories with People), can be called a news magazine when it offers us
generally only celebrity profiles and tabloid journalism. Who cares if
they rigged a vehicular explosion? Who cares if 20/20 faked an exorcism?
Well, those of us who expect news from "news mgazines" should care.
Thankfully, some in the TV business know better. Steven Bochco, perhaps
the most famous producer today, labeled Dateline and 20/20 more
accurately, identifying them as "quasi-news features" in wondering how
long people will keep going for the "scandal and tragedy du jour" he feels
such programs are based upon.
    Rocky Mountain Media Watch studied the content of about a hundred news
shows around the country on one evening - all the news other than crime,
disasters and war was able to be typed on to four sheets of paper,
double-sided, smaller than many of the essays Pitt students write. 30% of
news program time is devoted to ads, 7% to promotions and gab and 23% to
sports and weather - leaving only 40% for any real news. In addition to
the limited time given, over 40% of *that* time is given to news about
violence, even as America's crime rate has been falling for years. We are
left with only 23% of a news broadcast available for most of the news that
occurs.
    It is sad that the topics covered have shifted so. TV news producer
Danny Schechter (author of "The More You Watch, The Less You Know") has
commented that "What is truly shameful is that much of the media itself
has abandoned coverage of 'unsexy' issues like hunger and poverty for a
daily dose of trivia, infotainment and celebrity fluff." The news media
has followed the rest of television in playing the ratings game, aiming
for audiences at the expense of quality, depth of detail or serious
insight. The press should be reporting the facts, not what the public
wants to hear (though hopefully the public does like facts, the elections
of Reagan and Clinton nonewithstanding), an idea that has gone by the
wayside.
    There are still some forums willing to air hard news. Among "news
magazines", 60 Minutes still devotes a fair bit of time to real news,
though they too have too many fluff pieces. The NewsHour with Jim Lehrer,
for all of its elitist bias, lets us hear politicians talk for more than a
sound bite, and makes an attempt to offer dissenting opinions on most
issues. When one leaves TV land, things become even better. Most of the
major political magazines, from National Review to the New Republic to The
Nation, still rely on journalistic integrity most of the time. It is sad
though that such examples are becoming exceptions to the growing rule of a
shallow, soft news media. No wonder so many people complain about the
state of reporting today.

  Mischa Gelman misses the writing of Mike Royko.