The Argument Against MSNBC and Fox News

Yesterday, I talked about how to kill Fox News, but today I want to get into the why of it all. A lot of my argument does boil down to the fact that both MSNBC and Fox News masquerade themselves as “news” sources, when they are both anything but. So, to start this discussion, I’d like to lay out what, in my mind, is the role of a news source.  I believe the most important attributes of a news source are: 1) unbiased, objective, and only concerned with the truth; 2) actively trying to inform the public about matters that affect them; 3) actively trying to contextualize and inform the public about world affairs.

The biggest problem with media today is that “unbiased and objective” has become synonymous with boring. This is partly because of the popularity of “entertainment news” sources like MSNBC, and Fox News, but also because of the recent move to the “24 hour news cycle”. News outlets need to realize that “unbiased and objective” does not mean emotionless. Journalists need to rediscover their passion for the truth, and need to take pride in delivering that to the audience. As I mentioned yesterday, we as the audience have a duty to support true news sources, but those news sources also have a duty to give us the information we want.

Ultimately, the news needs to be a conversation. The news source engages the audience, gives us the truth of the situation, explains what needs explaining, and we as the audience give our reactions and help steer the news sources away from things that are trivial (ie. surfing alpacas or whatever Sarah Palin is doing at any given moment) towards things that are informative and relevant to our lives (ie. real explanations of the health care reform bill.) “News” sources like MSNBC and Fox News only serve to drown out the true news with their constant shouting back and forth. Imagine you went to a college lecture, but throughout the class, while the professor is explaining how government works, two students on either side of the room were shouting at each other constantly. Eventually, no matter how ridiculous the argument between the students, all attention moves to them, because they are loud, disruptive, and passionate. What happens at the end of the year? Everyone fails that class.

The answer seems simple: throw those students out of the class. So, why can’t we do that? Why are we allowing MSNBC and Fox News to take over the public discourse? Why do we as a society enjoy being ignorant, so long as it’s entertaining? And, why do we hold such low standards for those we give authority to keep us informed?

In “30 Rock” a couple weeks ago, Elizabeth Banks, playing an NBC News reporter, said, “It’s a 24-hour news cycle, Jack. We don’t have time to get it right.” How has this idea become the truth? If access to 24-hour news comes at the expense of accuracy, I’m against it. I want the truth, and nothing else. I am smart enough to form my own opinions on what it all means.

The other detriment of the 24-hour news cycle is that politics have become unendingly corrupted. Remember this: just because the Republican party keeps getting in the news by repeating the words, “The American people do not want health care reform,” does not make those words true. That is the point of living in a democracy: we tell the politicians what we want, not the other way around.

My next post will be more on my thoughts about democracy and America. Expect it when you see it.

How to Kill Fox News

This is something I’ve been thinking about for some time, but it finally crystallized just now while reading What Would Google Do? by Jeff Jarvis. The book is about new business models versus the old. Openness vs. closed environments. Google vs. the world. Jarvis makes the point that the old way of corporations, in which they create something where “Companies own customers, control distribution, make exclusive deals, lock out competitors, [and] keep trade secrets,” is no longer how to succeed, because the Internet has destroyed that paradigm. The Internet has empowered consumers. The blogosphere can alternately destroy or create companies based on what we say, and how the crowd gathers around a certain topic. To this end, we as consumers must take control over the power we wield, and we must take responsibility to drive out individuals, companies or products that we deem to be destructive to what we want for the future.

Obviously, and most detrimental to this undertaking, knowledge is power. Not just knowledge of the situation and subjects, but knowledge of those running counter to us, and how they may use misinformation or distractions to lead us to give them what they want, and, we must also have full knowledge about how our actions truly effect the situation. In many cases, gathering a group around an issue will effect that issue in direct relation to the spirit of the gathering (ie. support leads to positive effects, and opposition will lead to negative effects for the target.) But, the key that people forget with this line of thinking is that those effects are tied directly to the culture of payment in question. For example, if a group gathers around the recent issue with Toyota car safety, that group can directly impact Toyota because ultimately we, as consumers, decide whether or not to buy a Toyota. However, in the case of media, all groups lead to a positive effect for the target, except for a group of boycotters.

This connects me to the Limbaugh Corollary (alternately the Howard Stern Corollary, or Fox News Corollary.) When it comes to media, all attention, good or bad, is ultimately good for the target. If you love Rush Limbaugh, aside from being willfully ignorant on issues, you will listen to him and you will tell others to listen, leading to better ratings and more advertising revenue for Rush. However, the problem arises in that most people who hate Limbaugh will listen because they “want to know what he’s going to say,” thus making his comments newsworthy to those who don’t agree with him, their friends, and on until reputable news sources are even guilty of spreading links to content that is better off ignored.

I understand that even writing this blog connects me to this vicious circle, but only in the hopes that I may convince more like-minded people to follow my path. Because in the end, you cannot fight misinformation with the truth when the misinformation is being promulgated by everyone. If you want to go to every supporter of Fox News and Rush Limbaugh, you’ll have far more luck. Because the only thing that will kill Fox News and Limbaugh is if we all ignore them, and urge other influential sources to do the same. We all have to realize that Fox News and Rush Limbaugh are not pushing content that they actually believe in, they are simply pushing content that they know will sell. Whether or not Limbaugh or Hannity believe the bile that they spew forth is irrelevant. All that matters to them is growing their audience, and if you are part of their audience, you are part of the problem, in my opinion.

As Jeff Jarvis sums up so well: If I link to a story, “I’m recommending that you watch it. Even if I criticize the show, I’m saying there’s something worth seeing and discussing.” There is nothing worth seeing or discussing with partisan so-called “news”, this includes MSNBC just as much as Fox News and Rush Limbaugh. But, I’m willing to bet if you tracked the stories on both networks, MSNBC runs stories on Fox News much more often than Fox covers what’s said on MSNBC. And, in the end, all that does is bring more of the conversation towards Fox News.

Probably the best option would be to enact laws similar to England, where such stations wouldn’t legally be able to call themselves “news” organizations, but rather “entertainment” (one reason why BBC is one of the best true “news” organizations in the world,) but I have no faith in that ever coming to pass, because the people would never support government intervention into media like that. So, that leaves the work to us, and it’s not really difficult work. All you have to do is ignore it, don’t support it, and don’t support any supposed “news” outlet that does.