This week, I surveyed the six news magazine shows on network television (60 Minutes, 48 Hours, Nightline, Primetime, 20/20, and Dateline NBC) for a presentation on poverty in my TV1 class. Simply put, I was supposed to find stories of human struggle on these programs and talk about how they are covered. Much to my surprise the issues of the poor were inadequately reflected on. I could not believe how many of the segments on these shows were celebrity driven. In fact, on Friday, 20/20 dedicated its entire broadcast to the New Rich of America which included characters such as the "fabulous" Kimora Lee Simmons. The flagship news magazine, 60 Minutes, spent a considerable part of the show on the lewd Howard Stern.
Of all the programs, Nightline seemed to deliver the most "hard" news. For example, on World Aids Day last Thursday, Nightline offered a segment of the show to the HIV stricken in India. Dateline on the other hand, which was broadcasted on the same night, did not have any stories to discuss the significance of the day to the millions of people suffering from the terminal disease. To their credit, they did have one segment about international adoption that leads to child pornography.
Where is the direction of broadcast news going? Sensationalism, it seems. It's hard not to, especially when most of these news shows compete in primetime spots with intense dramas and new found reality TV. It is not to say that all news should be boring, preachy, and depressing. For the sake of ratings, they can't be. News programs, especially documentary style programs such as Dateline and Primetime have the ability to touch and inspire us. Yet, network producers are on a fine line between delivering credible news and tabloid talk. The issues of those afflicted should be covered extensively by these media outlets so that they can create awareness among the public, foster discussion, influence mobilization, and ultimately mold public policy.
Josh (not verified) @ December 6, 2005 - 2:41pm
Actually, this really isn't suprising at all. The least covered people in mainstream U.S. media are racial minorities and people of low socio-economic status. There are any number of reasons why -- you're probably aware that gatekeeping theory has been developed into a diagram that doesn't even shrink down well on a page it's so complex -- but most of them (in the case of coverage of people with low SES) have something to do with money.
In broadcast situations especially, news is expensive to produce. Anchors make a ton of money, and reporters and producers make a half ton. Sending them out on the streets for an in-depth look at poverty issues is not cost-effective, and advertisers aren't interested because if the people involved watch the episode, they're not likely to spend money with the advertisers (because they don't have any). Meanwhile, in celebrity-obsessed America, we can show file footage of Jennifer Aniston, get a couple of talking heads to dissect whatever she just did, saving the network money on production costs and making advertisers happy because now sales of Friends DVDs will increase.
Yes, there is absolutely something wrong with this formula. Now, what are we going to do to fix it?
»