The Point
I was watching the local news late last night (my first mistake!), drifting between sleep and semi-consciousness. I got up to go to bed just as The Point, a commentary by Mark Hyman, was wrapping up. When I got up, I rewound in my head what I had been watching so I could get my daily “I hate the local news” feeling before going to bed. The problem was I couldn’t distinguish what I had seen during the regular news and what was featured on The Point. That’s a problem, isn’t it? Isn’t it a bad thing to have one guy use the news show context to deliver his opinion on news stories? Forget Fox. The news-opinion format has already hit our local stations and, not surprisingly, it’s in support of the same crowd.
Like many of you, the first time I saw Mark Hyman interrupt news broadcasts with a one-minute commentary called The Point, it took me some time to realize that he was not actually part of the local affiliate giving us a local commentary on news. In fact, it’s only recently that I realized that Mark Hyman is actually vice president of Sinclair Broadcast Group, the owner of 62 television stations who forced the airing of the anti-Kerry documentary before the election. The Point is aired across the country, dangerously blurring the line between news and political campaigning. Hyman uses the context of a news show to seamlessly evolve news into political commentary, hoping that you don’t notice and realize who he is, what his political affiliation is, what company he works for or how bias his point of view is against liberal positions.
Although Hyman’s anti-Kerry position is clear, he still insists that there was no bias against the candidate: Asked if there is bias at Sinclair against Kerry, Hyman said, “I certainly hope not. There shouldn't be."
Hyman desperately attempts to continue disguising himself and his show as independent from political affiliation, supposedly providing information that you’re otherwise not getting—information that is “newsworthy.” He’s betting on the hope that you don’t realize, or care, that Sinclair has donated an enormous amount of money to the Republican Party since 1993. But all you really have to do is check out Hyman’s recommended readings. See a trend?
Worst of all, the man encourages you to send comments via his website. Why? Maybe to continue the guise of independence from party affiliation, much like Bill O’Reilly discusses emails during The O’Reilly Factor. Do the opinions of others alter the point on The Point?
We can’t have another election allowing this. We need to re-examine the use of airwaves for political discourse. This is where the battle should begin for the Democrats; get the playing field even again (after we set uniform national voting standards!).
9 Comments:
I wonder how much time it'll take for Hyman to start handing down "talking points" to local stations to guide their news coverage, much like Fox has been doing for some time.
I guess we'd all agree that this is a very bad thing, whether it comes from republicans or democrats. This type of pseudo-news is more pervasive each day, and it is not going to end well. Today it's the novelty, tomorrow, we'll come to expect it and not believe anything we see or hear on TV. Whoever gives whatever message, it is harsh noise in the ears of the opposition. But for those that agree, it's a comforting reassuring message. The gap widens, and down the road there will be little to argue between common people, as our point of reference will be what somebody thinks and not what somebody did.
Gotta go and watch the local news. Goodnight.
Guille
Nan-
We don't have a Sinclair station in my market (Washington, DC) but we do have Fox in both its broadcast and cable news formats. The "news and opinion" format is certainly popular, and in one way healthy. It indicates that people are engaged in the debate. More people seem to be watching opinion shows like O'Reilly and debate shows like Hannity and Combes than the more superficial stuff on CNN Headline News.
I guess we need to ask how clearly are news and opinion separated in the programming. How much do the political views of the editors affect story selection and the tone of the report?
I've heard some statistics (which, as we know, may be crap) on election coverage in which they counted stories about each candidate and tried to categorize them as postive or negative. Over the course of the campaign, Fox ran a roughly 50/50 mix of positive and negative on each candidate. The other networks ran 70% negative on Bush and 60% positive on Kerry. (If you look at the last two weeks of the campaign, it would seem that Fox fell off its Fair and Balanced wagon.)
Viewed that way, maybe the "news and opinion" format allows an outlet for editorial opinion with less coloring of the news. The "news and news" format of CNN seem more vulnerable problems of editorial policy.
We could also discuss the "news and slander" format favored by CBS, but that might involve an unseemly descent into bitterness.
-Chris
Chris,
Thanks for your post! Welcome to the blog.
My problem is mainly the lack of separation between news reporting and commentary. Many stations do it--some more than others. In the case of Hyman and The Point, you have a Vice President of the company that has a role in providing you with facts following up with an opinion.
I think you're right about the value of debate over superficial coverage, although I'm uncomfortable defining what's superficial and what's important fact reporting. This is a complicated issue.
But let's be clear. Mark Hyman's commentary or Bill O'Reilly's entire show is not debate. Debate involves dialogue, not lecture by a man hoping that you don't notice who he is.
About CBS: I'm not sure what you're getting at, although I'm guessing it has something to do with "Rather-gate." I have to admit that I rarely watch national network news. I'm curious about what you have to say.
Thanks for the welcome, Nan.
Regarding Rather, CBS, NYT and the general decline of the media, there is a good article in WSJ today:
http://www.opinionjournal.com/columnists/dhenninger/?id=110005883
I'm with you on the separation of news from opinion and the distiction between debate and monologue.
I'd like to see a Sgt. Friday news service ("Just the facts, ma'am") but wonder how many people would actually watch it.
-Chris
I gave up watching local news a long time ago. When I lived in the Cleveland area I quit when channel 19 (CBS) renamed their newscast to "Action News".
It really sucks, because you often end up under-informed on some actual news (like when a whole row of condos burned down just two blocks from my apartment and I didn't find out for a week), but I find that on the whole I really don't miss that crap.
If you have cable, I suggest watching the Daily Show. Instead of being a fake real news outlet, it's a real fake news outlet.
Oh, and I've waged a full-out boycott of Sinclair since they pulled the "we won't show Nightline because it's too political" BS. (Where Koppel read the names of the dead soldiers.) Forcing it's stations to run anti-Kerry propaganda was just icing on the cake.
Although, it's pretty easy to boycott Sinclair stations when there aren't any in your viewing area...
--Joe
Chris:
While I think the Wall Street Journal editorial unfairly singles out CBS and the New York Times (no mention of Fox--the highest rated news network in the country--or the actions of Sinclair Broadcast Group), I agree with the sentiment of the Op-Ed, especially about adopting the UK question period (I've been saying that for years!!).
At one time I also thought that people wouldn't watch "just the facts" news, but now I'm not so sure. Are there any legitimate surveys out there about this?
Joe:
Action News scares me. I get it here in Columbus with my cable package. If you watched that show nightly, you'd think the world was going to end. They make it sound like the world is going to explode any minute. They even talk louder than other news stations.
I stopped watching the local news in high school and it sounds like it hasn't improved much since then. Now, occasionally, I watch Telemundo news. I think I learn more there, all around. Though, it's frustrating how they insist on interviewing people for "insider" information because those people are the only ones who happen to speak Spanish in the VICINITY of the breaking news. It really lends an irrelevant perspective that I value.
I can't quite tell if there is a debate here or not, so I hope I'm understanding everyone correctly...
Yes, opinion reporting is a catchy way to get people watching, which is important, but dangerous and ultimately, pretty unnecessary I think.
News broadcasts, local and national, are supposed to be a source of simple truth--just a retelling of the events of the day. That's it. Not that hard. For opinion, we can go to a lot of other places. The infiltration of opinion pieces in the news is dangerous because it takes biased and therefore potentially misleading steps (that is, after all, the nature of opinion) in the, oftentimes, political education of viewers who may not be looking for the facts (read: truth) elsewhere. Nice that these bits ask viewers to take it a step further, put the news into context, think a little more about what it MEANS, process for a minute...but didn't we just get over our disgust of seeing this EXACT breakdown happen for us in spin alley after the debates?
Politicos will probably never stop undermining our ability to think for ourselves, so I don't see why they would back off here. I hang on to my belief that everything is going to come to a crashing catastrophic corrupted halt in these next four years, and we'll pick ourselves up and start over fresh as daisies.
And Alex will be a democrat.
MediaMatters.org just did a story detailing how The Point covers its topics:
http://mediamatters.org/items/200412020007
Post a Comment
<< Home