Next week, WCCO-TV, Channel 4, begins a brand new bold experiment in local television news. They will have two newscasts broadcast simultaneously, so we the viewers have a "choice" in what news we want to watch.
On the surface, this doesn't seem like a bad idea, and in the age of clicking, this idea fits ideally in the way many of us now watch TV, with remote control in hand. But it's not the idea that's the problem here. Rather, it is the promotion of the idea as an example of a television station's devotion to "community service."
When television began, laws were written to ensure stations devoted some broadcast time to issues of importance to communities. This is what Sunday morning TV is all about. Much of the community service idea eventually settled into local outlets forming their own news organizations and airing their own 10 o'clock news broadcasts. Go to any city of any size and you will find newscasts that resemble what we are all familiar with: 23 minute broadcasts divided into "news," weather and sports. Most stations have one male and one female anchorperson, a zany weather guy and the rah rah sports fellow.
A few years back when Channel 11 was purchased by Gannett, the way that news organization promoted itself was with a cloying "KARE" campaign, with warm news and smiling Twin Cities residents waving at the camera at the end of the broadcast. Media critics, journalism students, Channel 4's management, and those viewers with some semblance of taste, scorned the pretentious "warm fuzzy" newscast. But damn if it didn't work and eventually the KARE bear's news became the runaway leader in the ratings.
This startled Channel 4, the traditional news leader, and they scampered in reaction to Channel 11's success, eventually launching a similar campaign to show that they too, cared about their viewers and community. Last year they began a "Your News" onslaught, which included town hall gatherings to survey what their viewers wanted on a local newscast; a softer 5 o'clock broadcast which was children sensitive (no unnecessary shots of decaying corpses or the like); and several spots showcasing their people working in community service roles.
The latest example of "Your News" is this split newscast idea where viewers have a choice of watching the normal Channel 4 news and a different version on Channel 23, with no weather, sports, Dimension, but with more feature stories, financial stories, and health and fitness spots.
The problem of all this is that it really isn't a major news organization's job to ask its viewers what they want to see. Part of being a responsible news organization isn't to pawn off the definition of what "news" is, but to stand by the decisions of the organization in deciding what gets covered and what doesn't, along with defining the tone of the stories. Unfortunately, most local TV stations do an extremely poor job in doing this, and it is truly a staggering responsibility. It's a cop out to ask the viewers to decide what they want covered and how it should be covered. The more people you ask, the softer the focus becomes. What's news for me isn't necessarily what's going to be news for you. People have said they want to see less bad news. But what exactly do they mean? What is "bad" news? Much of what is news is going to disturb some group of people, because it will go against how they normally think and feel. Often times news won't make the majority feel good, but it's not supposed to.
What is truly troubling about the "Your News" concept is the idea that Channel 4 is meeting its community service responsibility by the pandering inherent in the way they have chosen to improve their ratings. If it really is our news, how about dropping the pretense of objectivity, and admit that all stories require the bias of those reporting and covering the event? Admit that what is "news" is whatever will attract the most viewers thus it isn't really a "service," it's more like entertainment.
Part of the reason given for splitting its newscast is that there isn't enough time to cover all the stories that deserve coverage and now Channel 4 will have more time. If they are really doing this for us, why not drop all the advertising and give themselves fourteen more minutes and also eliminate any potential conflicts of interest and offending and pandering to their sponsors?
This isn't to say that Channel 4's news is any worse than its competitors. Indeed, the Twin Cities is rather lucky in that we do have an alternative in Channel 2's experiment from last year, a newscast that covers the day's top stories with a little more depth and perspective. But how about something even more avant garde than giving us another clicker choice? Why not just send cameras on to the streets, into businesses, and into the legislative and city halls and film the day to day events of our communities? Try something different that no one has ever done: cover the routine and let stories build over time. Why cover crime with such fervor and not cover the long term issues that lead to despair and dysfunction in our society? Why do we need the talking head anchors rather than using the power of the medium as an art form and let the video do the talking? Television news increasingly suffers from the apparent need for the personalities of the station to be stars and the reason people watch the news.
Channel 4 is doing a lot of self promoting, proud that they are breaking new ground. But until they admit that our news is still their news, we will all just have to put up with the annoying dishonesty of the campaign. And I for one, will be watching M*A*S*H repeats on Channel 9.
Subscribe to:
Post Comments (Atom)
No comments:
Post a Comment