Connect with us
Barrett News Media Summit 2024

BNM Writers

The Problem with Television News in America

Jon Stewart offered a critical look at television news – its goals, its methods, and the product it offers up every day to millions of eager eyeballs.

Rick Schultz

Published

on

A photo of Jon Stewart at a newsdesk
Apple

The sh***y model of news that we are fed is based on an antiquated system that is not reflective of who’s watching it.”

Jon Stewart offered the insight during last week’s opening moments of his Apple TV+ program, “The Problem.” The program offered a critical look at television news – its goals, its methods, and the product it offers up every day to millions of eager eyeballs.

Many have grown accustomed to hearing news critiques from more conservative American enclaves. But to come from the liberal side of the spectrum was both refreshing and, as Stewart himself predicted might happen, just the match to ignite a blowback from inside the industry.

“Generally, our news media has been collected into two major categories, for the most part. You got your, what they call the mainstream, liberal corporate media. And then you got your right-wing, also mainstream, corporate media,” Stewart said, “One side of this media equation believes they are purveyors of truth and justice. The guardians of our democratic republic. The other side is effective.”

Stewart did not hold back during the program, stating that television news has largely become a vessel to deliver ratings-tested material to willing and eager viewers. In his opinion, the industry focus is now on delivering what the viewer wants, rather than on what the journalist believes is worthy of time or trust. He feels a journalist’s job should be to lay out the facts and truth as he sees it and let the chips fall where they may.

The host didn’t hide the fact that his bias may lead him to see a specific tilt to a story. His main point, however, is that television news should provide what the journalist believes to be true, rather than offering up what they think will simply be popular or agreed with by their audience.

Stewart zoned in on the issue of “Critical Race Theory,” offering up a montage of conservative media opinion, referring to CRT as “poison,” “marxist,” “communist,” and “racist.” He blamed the conservative media for creating the issue and “lighting the fire” of outrage across America.

“The right-wing media, working seamlessly with their political arm, made that happen,” Stewart said. “That’s how fucking good these guys are. If you’re going to battle this coordinated effort – political and media together – we’re gonna need a hero.” Stewart feels that this narrative was born not from truth but rather from the corporate media’s effort to create the hullabaloo only to exploit it to the max.

“Unfortunately, if they are the one thing that stands between America and chaos, we are in trouble. Because rarely has there been an institution that has such a distance between its aspirations and its execution,” Steward said. “The media keeps informing us how incredibly important they are to our survival because knowing keeps us free. But when given crucial informational tasks, they instead build us prisons of what the fuck are you people talking about?”

The program then moved on, with its host saying the media was correct in its initial pursuit of the Trump “Russia conspiracy.” However, he said they quickly descended into absurdity, hurting their credibility in the process. Stewart played montage after montage, featuring mainstream media claims of “bombshells” about President Trump and featuring the qualifier, “if true.” Most of these “bombshells” turned out to be either untrue or far different than what had been portrayed. Try as they did, the media’s claims of “walls closing in” on the former president turned out to be nothing more than false promises to their eager audiences.

“The media is such an important part of a democracy’s immune system, but can the saviors of our democracy be saved themselves,” Stewart asked.

“The problem is that we’ve become moral imbeciles, as we are being spoon-fed little pieces of outrage day by day, no, stay with the story, stay with the story. You can’t lose any number. The death knell is if your numbers go down,” said Chris Stirewalt, former Politics Editor at Fox News. “That’s why we only get one story at a time. Producers know that that will work and that will rate, so we’re going to stick with the thing that people are expecting and that they know, because if you take it away from them, they may get mad, the number may go down, and they may go someplace else to get it.”

During his time at Fox, Stirewalt was known for his wit, political expertise, and, when the situation dictated, for offering a less-than-popular opinion.

“I think what people don’t realize is that it’s a ratings-driven business, but it’s also driven by meetings. People have meetings and make decisions every day that affect the tone, tenor, and direction of coverage,” Stewart said. The panel added that producers are guided by ratings showing minute-by-minute audience reactions, a trend that allows decision-makers to remain focused on the stories and angles that attract and keep the most eyeballs.

The table is set, giving the audience what the networks feel they want and will pay for, regardless of what many of the producers and journalists feel are, in actuality, the most important and relevant stories or angles of the day.

“There are meetings that set the agenda for the network, that set the agenda for the morning shows, that are gonna set the evening show agendas. You have to divvy up who’s gonna have which guests because you can’t have everybody shared on every single show,” former CNN anchor Soledad O’Brien said. “And then the shows themselves have specific meetings. What are we gonna start with? What are we gonna end with? Who’s the guest? How long do they get? I think this idea of, hey, we just report the news, is ridiculous because, of course, it’s a zero-sum game. If you’re covering something, then that means you’re not giving coverage to something else.”

In addition, social media is now the shiny new object attracting news producers and compelling them to chase left and right. The excitable cat is trying to land his paw on the laser pointer.

“You can see a television news story in which people are like, this idiot said this about this idiot on Twitter, and they treat it like it’s a whole new story,” Stirewalt said. “So it has permeated the thinking in very profound ways, and it’s made us dumber,” Stirewalt said in the ten years he was at Fox; he saw the business change from keeping away from ratings talk to relying on it before all else.

Stewart added that when he started the Daily Show at the age of 35, he led with what he believed in, hoping it would attract an audience, rather than starting with what he thought the audience would want and “backing into it.” In his words, this purity of intention led to a more honestly-rooted journalistic effort.

“I think what this is really about is a lack of courage of changing the model,” Sean McLaughlin, V.P. of News at E.W. Scripps, said. “The part about the minute-by-minutes, you’re looking at data that is already incredibly flawed from the beginning.” He explained that today’s hyper-fragmentation makes the Nielsen-collected data much less reliable than in years past. And even then, many have felt that the reliance on a relatively small set of households recording their viewing patterns was an already-skewed method, to begin with. “At some point, you just start realizing, I wonder if what we’re looking at is any degree of realism at all,” McLaughlin added.

O’Brien said most newsrooms now perform under essentially the same set of unwritten rules.

“I think for most of the journalists working there when I was there, they loved journalism, as I did, and I do. But I think the mission was to do the best job you could do and win,” O’Brien said. “Win as in the ratings. Win is making sure that you’re getting picked up by the New York Times. Win is not about educating the public. It’s not so complicated.”

The prevailing theme of this episode of “The Problem” was that television news has become an all-too-tailored production. Especially in cable news, the product has become opinion-driven entertainment.

“What differentiates news from entertainment is that sometimes we have to tell you what you don’t want to hear,” Stirewalt summed up. “We are supposed to be the vegetables. We are supposed to be the nutrient-giving portion of the plate. Not dessert. What cable news has tried to do, and what local news sometimes does, is get the green beans in the shortbread, and you’ve got now you’ve turned the news into entertainment, and you’re treating entertainment like news. Both of those are bad things. News should be news; entertainment should be entertainment.”

The episode concluded with a conversation between Stewart and former Walt Disney CEO Robert Iger. Iger felt news organizations may currently be on the defensive because they feel they’ve been under the microscope like never before.

“My advice to them was to not hear the noise as much, to continue doing the job that we’ve entrusted them to do,” Iger said about his 30-plus years overseeing ABC News. “Which is, to tell the truth, to state the facts. To present the news in an accurate and a, fair and a timely basis. But we never sought to drive ratings or even bottom-line success at the sacrifice of what we consider to be quality. It wasn’t part of our discussion.”

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Click to comment

Leave a Reply

Your email address will not be published. Required fields are marked *

This site uses Akismet to reduce spam. Learn how your comment data is processed.

BNM Writers

News is the Only Thing Missing From Election Coverage

Coverage of the election is, as we’ve discussed, still very horse-race-centric, and there’s been, of course, coverage of the various Trump court cases, but where is the coverage of exactly what the candidates plan to do if elected?

Published

on

A photo featuring I voted stickers

The first thought I had when I heard NBC had hired Ronna McDaniel as a commentator for $300,000 a year was to wonder how many actual journalists they could have hired for that money. Then, I recalled that NBC had laid off dozens of news staffers just a few months ago. Then, I remembered that I had just recently written a column decrying news organizations throwing pretty much anybody on the air as a “pundit” and this….

This was worse. It’s one thing to grab some rando who happened to be a minor functionary for the Executive Branch. It’s another to hire someone whose job was to promote election denialism and pretend that her opinion is something valuable for viewers. And, yes, it’s just as ridiculous when news organizations hire former presidential press secretaries (that’s you, Jen Psaki and Sean Spicer), their very jobs were to spin everything in their bosses’ favor and now you’re going to pay them big salaries for, um, what? Because they “have a name” or you’re afraid someone else will snap them up? Why them?

The McDaniel deal lasted five days, one completely unilluminating interview, and one unexpected Chuck Todd spine-growing outburst, so it’ll all blow over soon enough. The problem is, though, the part about having fired several news staffers, and what it means in an election year on both the national and local levels. If you have the money to hire an alleged pundit – any alleged pundit – you have the money to hire reporters, and I don’t mean anchors or opinion show hosts.

Coverage of the election is, as we’ve discussed, still very horse-race-centric, and there’s been, of course, coverage of the various Trump court cases, but where is the coverage of exactly what the candidates plan to do if elected? Who’s probing Project 2025 and why isn’t it front-page, first-segment news? Who’s pressing the Biden administration on Gaza? Is anyone reporting on the candidates’ record on climate change?

Beyond prescription drug prices, is anyone digging into the broken healthcare system and demanding answers from the candidates about what they’ll do to fix it (and not letting Trump get away with “I’ll have a better plan, a beautiful plan” without a single specific detail, like they did in 2016)? Why didn’t anyone focus on, for example, the GOP candidate for governor of North Carolina and his incendiary past comments well before the primary?

Pundits are not going to do the legwork on the issues; they’ll just talk about swing states while John King and Steve Kornacki point at their touchscreen maps. We need reporting on the things that matter (and can affect that horse race, even if most people have made up their minds). It shouldn’t just be Pro Publica and scattered independent journalists doing the dirty work.

Honestly, I don’t want to hear the complaints about the quality of the candidates or how this is a rerun or any of that. (We’ll leave that to The New York Times.) We are a horribly underinformed electorate and we got the horse race we deserve. It might just be idealists like me who think that, just maybe, the news media can play a role in educating the public and bursting the bubbles and echo chambers. This country has survived and prospered for a few centuries with the press shining a light on injustice and corruption.

Now, when we need that most, they’re more concerned with what they think will bring them ratings and money (although someone will have to explain to me who thought having Ronna McDaniel as a paid commentator would draw a single viewer to NBC).

Here’s a thought: Don’t lay off reporters, especially in an election year.  Assign them to dig deep on issues that matter to the voters.

Let the pundits talk about that.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

8 Ways to Take Your Commercials From Drab to Fab

Our main source of income is derived from commercials. There are a lot of bad commercials.

Avatar photo

Published

on

A photo of a sign with the letters AD on it

Another reason to read this column, I often add an Easter egg. We are in the advertising business. Our main source of income is derived from commercials. There are a lot of bad commercials. Frequently, clients write these ads. You can excuse it if the spots suck. But when the commercials are written by Account Executives or the production department at the station, it is kind of unforgivable.

I am going to share the most meaningless phrases in commercials.

Locally Owned and Operated

Customers do not care. If customers cared about a business being locally owned and operated, Walmart would not exist. People want service, selection, and value. They do not want to get soaked. When you purchase something, are you willing to pay 20% for a local company? If you say yes, you are wrong. People want a deal.

The Phone Number

Doing 70 down the 405, John slammed on the brakes to write down the phone number for an amazing HVAC Company. That is not how it works people. HVAC companies rarely have or should have regular customers.

Normally, your AC is out. You call the HVAC Company that you are familiar with. Radio advertising allows people to have “TOMA”: Top of Mind Awareness. There are stats that show when a company is advertising on your radio station, their website shows an increase in traffic. When you needed a service for your home, you hit Google and choose the company that you’ve heard of. It’s that simple. I actually heard a commercial asking listeners to add a businesses phone number to their contact list. That is a moronic use of advertising real estate.

Street Addresses

“Tequilaberry’s Prime Rib is located at 106 East Governors Drive in Peoria.” 

The people listening cannot process that detail. You could say “Tequilaberry’s Prime Rib is on Governors Drive just off 10th in Peoria.” That is almost digestible. That creates a picture of where it is.

Trust me, people interested in prime rib will Google you and load the address in their navigation system. Spend that precious spot time selling the experience of the restaurant.

Always Using the Company Owner/Founder in Commercials

Sometimes, it is amazing when business owners are their spokesperson. They have passion and are natural salespeople. Some business owners are terrible at speaking about their product.

When you have a business owner who is a natural promoter, they can drag listeners into their business. I once worked with a family who owned a couple of hardware stores. They spoke about the benefits of visiting their stores. It was heartfelt and real. They promised that their employees can help solve any problem in your home. If you went to that store and had a simple or complex problem, the employees helped you out.

I once worked with a man who owned a really nice flooring company.  For whatever reason, he thought that he was funny. He had spots written by him, his wife, or a kid. The ads were dreadful. They were not funny at all. Account Executives need to talk these clients out of doing commercials like this. Nothing says wacky hijinks like flooring.

Overuse of Numbers

“We have grapes at 99 cents a pound, Chuck steak at $1.99, two-for-one zucchini.”

Trust me, no one driving in city traffic can keep track of that. “The 2025 Chevy Chevette is back with 45-mpg efficiency and amazing 18-inch tires. Prices start at $19,999…  The New Chevy Silverado starts at $32,999.”

It gets really confusing fast.

WWW.

Yes, I hear commercials saying check us on the internet at “W-W-W dot business name here dot com.”

WWW is assumed and not needed anymore unless you are running a Commadore-64 with the latest floppy disc technology.

Yellow Pages Ad

“Check out our new ad in the Yellow Pages!”

OMG, no one reads those damn things anymore. Most people born after 1960 just toss those suckers in the trash. There was a time when the Yellow Pages were the largest revenue generator in advertising. Yes, a book of ads. Like Facebook, without your buddy’s political, vacation, or food posts. It was just ads. Zero content.

I had stuffed salmon tonight that I engineered myself. I would make Sydney Sweeney quite the trophy husband. Set us up. Hey, I am single. It was not that long ago that you would hear a radio ad that promoted a coupon in the Sunday paper.

Well, that copy should be deader than a doornail.

Amateur Theater

A husband and wife discussing their lawn and how she heard about Telly’s Lawn Service from her friend Stacy. 

Those commercials are obviously contrived and not interesting at all. 

______________________________________________________________________________________________________

Open every commercial must have an attention-grabbing opener. “Totally Jammed…  The floor covered with the guest towels. Fearing the horrific consequences of another flush…  I did the right thing. I called ABC Plumbing. Quick service, a great price, and peace of mind.”

The next time that the plunger is failing to get the desired results, the listener of that commercial will identify with the very realist scenario.

We are in the advertising business. Use radio as it was meant.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading

BNM Writers

The Lost Art of Using Sound as a Springboard

Use sound it wherever you can. All you need is a loyal, capable and willing board operator, to go along with a conscientious host.

Published

on

A photo of Jon Stewart hosting The Daily Show
(Photo: Comedy Central)

Jon Stewart was the first guy to do it — take a politician’s words from the news of the day or week. Search his or her entire past and find a sound byte saying the exact opposite.

It became an art form – and a great way to keep people accountable.

Most radio operations don’t have the resources necessary to consistently do something like that, but truth be told, that kind of journalism isn’t really the point of this week’s column.

It’s an example of the simple power of sound. We need to use it more within our shows. Use sound it wherever you can. All you need is a loyal, capable, and willing board operator, to go along with a conscientious host.

Speaking from experience, not doing it is lazy.

Doing it takes minimal effort and helps conversations tremendously – especially when it’s in real-time. I know. I’ve been there – missing opportunity after opportunity because I didn’t think of it, ask for help or just do it myself.

Put simply, good sound is a better springboard to a question than just a question.

Just the other day, I realized how well it works and how little I’ve been doing it.

Here’s what happened.

We have one particularly heated congressional race in our state. The Republican candidate is running for a second time after narrowly losing in 2022 in an election where Connecticut’s gubernatorial candidate from the same party got smoked, and the Republican presidential candidate lost the state as well.

This time around, there’s a struggling Democratic President with real doubts about the economy and the country’s standing in the world.

Put simply, the Democratic congressional incumbent has a massive task ahead to get re-elected.

On my show, I try to be consistently independent and be a place for both parties to appear with the expectation that the conversations will be fair and honest.

The Republican candidate came on the show earlier this month, and we went through a number of issues. Connecticut is a relatively strong Democratic stronghold, where the party controls the legislature, the Governor’s Mansion, and the entire congressional delegation.

Having said that, the largest voting block is unaffiliated, so appealing to independents is crucial for either side to win. I asked the Republican candidate twice about whether he will support Donald Trump, and both times, he equivocated. I asked the follow-up, we were on the record, so I moved on.

The following week, his opponent, the Democratic incumbent, was scheduled to appear on the show. Before her arrival, I realized the Trump Q&A should probably be replayed for her. Duh.

My producer found it, clipped it, and had it at the ready. I felt that I should have realized it sooner and not put some added strain on my partner’s morning routine. He was fine, but it definitely added unnecessary work within the show.

Lesson learned.

The sound byte worked well. I played it. She responded. We moved the story forward, and it was compelling – as you might imagine, the topic of Trump vs. Biden is pretty compelling these days.

By no means did it create a “wow” moment. That would be a little much. But it did make the show better, using the opponent’s own voice as opposed to my paraphrasing something. That lends credibility, not only to the topic but also to the show. He gave this important answer on our show, and she gave her response … on our show.

My final thought on this is that we (I) need to look for more places to utilize sound as a springboard to conversations, as opposed to simply raising the topic and discussing it. Maybe you’re already good at it and do it all the time, but this past week, I realized I need to push myself to do it more.

Subscribe To The BNM Rundown

The Top 8 News Media Stories of the Day, sent directly to your inbox every afternoon!

Invalid email address
We promise not to spam you. You can unsubscribe at any time.
Continue Reading
Advertisement

Advertisement
Advertisement

Upcoming Events

BNM Writers

Copyright © 2024 Barrett Media.