It’s clear that the American people are divided on the subject of how our country should deal with the developing situation in Iraq. After Monday night, it’s also clear how some members of the media feel about the topic. ABC’s, CBS’s and national NBC’s decisions not to air live coverage of President Bush’s national address sent a message to television audiences that media executives should not send.
The debate over how much the United States should become involved in trying to find out what (if anything) Saddam Hussein is hiding from United Nations weapons inspectors is going on all over the country. Discussion over this issue is happening on street corners, in classrooms, around water coolers, on the Internet and on Capitol Hill. This week, members of Congress are discussing whether or not they will authorize the president to use force against Saddam Hussein. The citizens of this country have a right to hear both sides of the Iraq debate so that each of us can reach a well-informed decision on the topic.
Television network executives should not take it upon themselves to control the public’s access to this information. Unfortunately, that’s exactly what happened on Monday. Some of those people who have built their careers on the First Amendment did a degree of injustice to it.
The major networks would never dream of airing a sitcom in place of the State of the Union address. Even though a station could decide against live coverage of a major news story and, in doing so, draw in all those viewers who couldn’t care less about current world events, they usually stick to the news. While there’s no way for networks to compete with each other when they’re all showing the same thing, the importance of a big news event warrants the attention of the media no matter how redundant the coverage may be. The absence of live coverage of the president’s speech on two of the major television networks betrays the objectivity of journalism.
As a broadcast journalism major, I frequently find myself in discussions over the quality of television news. I do my best to defend the medium because I believe that the majority of those who work in the industry do their best to report the news in a fair and balanced way. I can’t think of any example of a professional broadcast journalist I’ve known whom I’ve discovered to have an ulterior motive behind his methods of reporting. However, a chain is only as strong as its weakest link.
Unfortunately, while noble journalists are reporting the news responsibly, people who are less concerned with journalism and more concerned with attracting larger audiences and collecting more advertising revenue usually control the assignments they are given. Since money essentially runs the world, it’s no surprise that advertising dollars impact the media.
Television news programs shouldn’t always be the first news medium to buckle under pressure from advertisers. Those who work in broadcast journalism should hold themselves to the same standards as those who work in print journalism, in spite of the fact that it takes much less effort and intellect to watch CNN than to pick up a copy of The New York Times and read it.
The public needs to be mindful of where the interests of news organizations lie. Whose first obligation is to the truth and whose is to the dollar? Is it fair for ABC to broadcast a good review of a Disney movie since ABC falls under the corporate umbrella of the evil Mouse? Would MSNBC pursue allegations of corruption at Microsoft as enthusiastically as it pursued allegations of accounting fraud at WorldCom? Should the networks decide which presidential addresses are important enough for the public to hear?
It’s disappointing when the credibility of so many people who are doing good work is undermined by the errors of a corrupt oligarchy. Although, it’s not like anyone at Boston University would know what that’s like…
As much as I like Drew Carey, I’m much more interested in whether or not our country is going to go to war with Iraq. After all, nine months from now, I won’t be a student anymore. If I thought there was any chance that I could be drafted to fight a war, I’d probably think again about my decision not to pursue graduate school immediately.
I have yet to decide how I feel about the possibility of United States action in Iraq. I want to know why President Bush is pushing the envelope now when Saddam Hussein has been turning away United Nations weapons inspectors for the past few years. I need more information before I can make my decision and I don’t want members of the media deciding the amount of information that I get.