The television news media never ceases to amaze me. Apparently the pressure of being "first" at any event, or having more one-on-one interviews, or some other measure we viewers don't understand, drives the networks to new extremes. Today we are able to see world-wide events broadcast into our homes, via cable or satellite. Apparently it is as if no one is concerned about the effects on society. And, if others are like those in our house, much of it is ignored or we find ourselves channel surfing to avoid the abuse to our psyche.
There must be tons of money from advertising in the television market with the frequency they run commercials on local as well as network programming. In fact they are running more, shorter commercials during a "break" than a year or two ago and some are so tightly spaced that they actually overlap with the end of the previous spot. Sometimes it is difficult on Cox Cable to determine when you have gone from one product into the next product. The real key to successfully watching television probably lies in the DVD market, watching movies or entertainment of one's own choosing. I don't know what "streaming" is, but it must be the next super bug, because a lot of the cable company commercials talk about it. My salvation lies in a small collection of old movies and video taped programming from old sitcoms like Bob Newhart and others from that era.
But, my real concern about television and particularly the news media on which many of us are dependent, lies in the choice of things they cover as "news." The situation that was covered in Ferguson, Mo., started out as news and turned into non-stop recording of lawbreakers getting free publicity. There seemed to be no end to the extremes reporters would go to to keep the camera rolling. My question for that situation, and others handled with the same degree of enthusiasm, is what was the real purpose of the coverage? Was it intended to incite further activity for the purpose of having something to report or was the object to bring about a new system of justice to replace the Grand Jury? If we are expected to get our news from television, why don't they explain how all those people who are demonstrating in various cities get the money to pay their expenses and provide for their families, when they are spending so much time in front of the television news cameras. That would be news.
I recently watched a panel discussion about a news topic and there was an expert on both sides of the issue. As a viewer with an opinion, you couldn't lose because one of them was going to say what you needed to hear to reinforce your view.
Is that really news? Was the topic so important that the network only acted as arbitrator to a set-up debate they controlled by their choice of "experts"? Too frequently I feel like a victim when a major issue is being reported and the networks go on and on with very little to report but they must be on the air with something or there is nothing to provide the "break" so commercials can be plugged in. Yes, I know, I do turn the television off.
Trying to watch prime-time talk shows like O'Reilly doesn't help much because he keeps interrupting his guests if they don't agree with him -- and I guess they pay pretty well because many do agree with him. I haven't tried reading any of his books. Maybe they provide the sort of explanation that would entice me to watch his show because he might be patriotic or something. However, up to this point I'm pretty sure the "spin ends here" has some meaning but I'm not going to one of his ego-inflating in-person shows to find out.
Even though it doesn't qualify as news, my favorite reason for having a television set, and paying the cable company to give me more network choices, is the sports programming -- specifically football. If things get any worse, I'll try taping the bowl games this year and rerun them this summer when there is no football. Or maybe I need to understand soccer or learn more about ice hockey. Of course, the summer will bring about beach volleyball with the young ladies in less attire than you see on Beaver Lake beaches.
The real demise of television programming has been the Weather Channel and their attempts to become entertainment rather than a source of weather reporting and education. The "Highway To Hell" reruns (I guess they are, they all look alike) and the use of a mountain as a backdrop for the "Prospectors" has managed to change our dependence on them for meaningful weather forecasting. I guess these are "new era" reality shows. No longer can you plan on getting current conditions and a week's worth of forecast on a regular schedule 24 hours a day.
As you can tell, most television has worn out its welcome at our house. The lack of sunshine, the dreary days and too many trips to the doctor with instructions on how to stay inside to recover from an illness, have taken their toll. Hopefully we'll have a short winter and by mid-summer, maybe television will have taken on a whole new style of broadcasting.
•••
Editor's note: Leo Lynch is an award-winning columnist. He is a native of Benton County has deep roots in northwest Arkansas. He is a retired industrial engineer and former Justice of the Peace. He can be contacted at [email protected].
Editorial on 12/24/2014