The 24-Hour "News" Media

Due in large part to the non-stop 24-hour "news" cycle that is spun on a daily basis, the media has gone from reliable to anything but. Instead of fact-checking and garnering information from credible source material, the media now tends to prefer quantity over quality. If the anonymous source has an interesting story to share, whether true or not, chances are that it'll make the 24-hour news cycle on some "trusted" news network. This isn't even about Faux News. While much bias is shown in the opinion-oriented shows on Faux News, which largely lean toward conservative Republicans, when it comes to the "news"-oriented programs, the networks are all alike. Whether it be CNN, MSNBC, Faux News, CNBC, or what have you, chances are that rumors and speculation will go reported more often than well documented facts and studies from credible sources. Why? The time issue. No longer do the networks have the kind of time to continually spit out factual documented information. It takes time to conduct a study, to interview individuals or groups, to be a well-substantiated investigative journalist. When networks air for 24 consecutive hours in a day for seven days in the week, while they may be able to report a fact or a finding in a study here and there, they need more information and more stories to fill up the remaining 23 hours. This is a reason why there are opinion-oriented shows on these "news" networks in the first place. Sometimes, a network (many times, several) will become so obsessive over one particular story, that they harp/report about it for hours on end. Remember the Anna Nicole Smith death? The Paris Hilton jail term and the day she was released? The Duke lacrosse case? Now with the Michael Vick dogfighting case?

With exception to Paris Hilton, these other three scenarios (and many others) largely consist of opinion, emotion, and speculation. There are little to no facts reported. The day Anna Nicole Smith died, nobody was certain of the reasoning behind it. So, what did CNN, MSNBC, Faux News and others decide to do? Oh, let's speak to people they know on the air and attempt to find the answers for ourselves. Honestly, until the investigation is complete, what will these on-air interviews actually accomplish? Other than fill up air time? Not much. ...And until the investigation is completed, those in charge of that investigation will be unable to speak about it. So, all that gets discussed on air deals with what the person was like to be around, what they were like as a parent or a husband/wife, a memory he/she has of that person, and what they think may have happened. People give modern documentarians a lot of grief (Michael Moore, in particular), claiming that some of their facts may be "fudged," but in comparison to these "news" networks, the documentarians are a fact-checking goldmine. These filmmakers have a year to two years, at least, to complete these films. Because of that, they have plenty of time to receive information from hopefully credible sources, fact-check, and come out with a final product that is both entertaining and factually informative. That isn't the case often times in the "news" media.

The Duke lacrosse case was harped about for how long by the "news" media, who for the most part, convicted the three lacrosse players of rape just after the story broke. Innocent until proven guilty? Not in the "news" media. In the "news" media, it's "Which slant will improve ratings the most?" Unfortunately, for the most part, it's by depicting individuals, especially celebrities, as being guilty before such is proven. These young college kids' received death threats, were tormented, were suspended, and their lives will be partially tarnished forever. Why? Why, when a case breaks such as this one, does the "news" media obsess over it? It reminds me of the radio and why I don't listen to it much anymore. An artist or a band may release a hit single, but what becomes of that single? It gets overplayed and many who may have liked it at first despise it not long after. However, the effects of the "news" media overplaying a story such as the lacrosse case are much more detrimental than the radio overplaying a song.

What about the Columbine massacre? Remember the media then? Bothering family members of the victims, while they were mourning the loss of their loved ones. It was disgraceful. Then, oh, let's blame musicians and video games, Marilyn Manson in particular. Manson's name, for a long time, was associated with Columbine. He canceled the rest of his tour and isolated himself for a long time, as he received many death threats, as well. After a while, certain mediums reported errors in their initial broadcasting, stating that the killers, Eric Harris and Dylan Klebold, weren't in fact fans of Manson. They actually despised his music. But, by that point, it didn't matter. The damage had been done. Fortunately for Manson, Michael Moore's documentary, "Bowling for Columbine," helped him restore a bit of his pre-Columbine reputation and actually gave people a different sense of who he was as a person. It seems that the public has all but waved the allegations that Manson was indirectly responsible for the killings.

That brings me to the most recent obsession, with NFL star Michael Vick. The man's trial has not begun yet. He plead not guilty just a few days ago, yet some claim that whether he's guilty or not, his name will forever be affiliated with dogfighting. Again, the "news" media does not stand by one being innocent until proven guilty. If they can boost their ratings by ruining a person's reputation, before they're convicted in a court of law, then they will do so. The "news" media likes to speculate, as they don't have access to facts many times, so let me speculate. What if Michael Vick is found not guilty as he plead just last week? What then? Some state that he'll never play NFL football again because of this, regardless of if he's innocent. But, why? Los Angeles Lakers' star, Kobe Bryant, was charged with rape, but those charges were dropped. He was never even suspended and is one of the most dominant players in the NBA, if not THE most dominant player in the league. Even though the charges were dropped, should Kobe not have been allowed to play in the NBA ever again? Even though he was never proven to be guilty, should he always be treated as such? With the Duke lacrosse players, should they never have been allowed back at the University or allowed to play for the team, even though it was found that the strippers lied about the allegations? Does their damaged reputations mean more than their innocence? Should Manson never have been allowed to release another album or tour again, because he was partially blamed for the Columbine massacre? Even though it was discovered that the killers despised his music and he had nothing to do with it directly anyway? If one is truly innocent until proven guilty, then why are they not treated in such a manner? Why are some and not others? Why is the media more obsessive about some stories, convicting certain individuals before their trials start, more so than others? If none of these individuals are proven to be guilty, then they are to be known as innocent, according to the law of the judicial system. The reputation of a person proven to be innocent should not be tarnished like that of a person who's proven to be guilty, largely due to the 24-hour "news" cycle.

As usual, I believe the "news" media to be wrong. Kobe Bryant is slowly rebounding from his temporarily tarnished image. The Duke lacrosse players will probably due likewise, especially after having transferred elsewhere. Manson has been able to do likewise, having released three albums since the school shooting. If Vick is proven to be not guilty in a court of law, there will always be some people who will stand up and firmly believe he did it, but if he's proven to be not guilty, the bashers will slowly fade. Suspicions will always be prevalent regardless of the verdict, but that wouldn't be enough to prevent a person from doing their job. Kobe plays basketball. The kids at Duke goto school and play lacrosse. Manson sings, performs live, paints, acts, writes, and directs. Vick would play football. If that were to occur, the most guilty of all the parties I've written about in this blog would have been the "news" media, for temporarily (perhaps permanently) destroying the reputations and images of these people.